MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
Supreme Court of the United States
Argued October 4, 2006 Decided January 9, 2007
Full case name	MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
Docket nos.	05-608
Holding
Contrary to respondents’ assertion that only a freestanding patent-invalidity claim is at issue, the record establishes that petitioner has raised and preserved the contract claim that, because of patent invalidity, unenforceability, and noninfringement, no royalties are owing. 427 F. 3d 958, reversed and remanded.
Court membership
Chief Justice Associate Justices
Case opinions
Majority	Scalia, joined by Roberts, Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Alito
Dissent	Thomas

MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) was a decision by the Supreme Court of the United States involving patent law. It arose from a lawsuit filed by MedImmune which challenged one of the Cabilly patents issued to Genentech. One of the central issues was whether a licensee retained the right to challenge a licensed patent, or whether this right was forfeited upon signing of the license agreement. The case related indirectly to current debate over whether the US should change to a first to file patent system.

The origin of the dispute was a lengthy interference proceeding between Genentech and Celltech which led to the issuance of a new patent in 2001, 18 years after the original filing. This effectively granted Genentech a patent term of 29 years. MedImmune was a licensee of the later Cabilly patent, but argued that the term had been improperly extended and that it need not continue to pay royalties past the original expiry date in March 2006. The case was decided in favor of MedImmune, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) declared the patent invalid. Genentech appealed to the USPTO the ruling and the patent remained valid and enforceable until the appeal was concluded. Genentech prevailed during the reexamination of Cabilly II(2) by the USPTO (1). GlaxoSmithKline and Human Genome Sciences both are challenging the patent under antitrust law (1). This is based on the settlement between Genentech and Celltech and their dispute over the original Cabilly patent 4,816,567 and the Celltech's patent 4,816,397. Both of which issued on March 28, 1989 (2),(3). Cabilly II is patent 6331415(4) which issued December 18, 2001.

See also

1)http://www.biolawgics.com/patent-law/the-never-ending-battle-over-genentechs-cabilly-ii-patent/

2)http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=4816397.PN.&OS=PN/4816397&RS=PN/4816397

3)http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=4816567.PN.&OS=PN/4816567&RS=PN/4816567

4) http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=6331415.PN.&OS=PN/6331415&RS=PN/6331415

• List of United States Supreme Court cases, volume 549
• List of United States Supreme Court cases
• Altvater v. Freeman, 319 U.S. 359 (1943)

Further reading

• Chu, Stephanie (2007). "Operation Restoration: How can Patent Holders protect themselves from MedImmune". Duke Law & Technology Review 2007: 0008. http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/dltr/articles/2007DLTR0008.html. 
• [|O'Connor, Sean M.] (2007). "Using Stock and Stock Options to Minimize Patent Royalty Payment Risks After Medimmune v. Genentech". New York University Journal of Law and Business 3 (2): 381–472. http://www1.law.nyu.edu/journals/lawbusiness/issues/3-2.html. 

External links

• Genentech Claims Rejected on Patent Which Was Subject of Recent Supreme Court Decision. California Biotech Law Blog. February 21, 2007.
• USPTO issues double patenting rejection on Genentech's 29 year old patent Patent Baristas Blog. February 22, 2006.
• Biotech patent dispute involves millions. Gazzette.net. November 16, 2005.
• Genentech Hit with Adverse Patent Ruling. California Biotech Law Blog. September 30, 2005.
• It Lives for 29 Years?. Legal Times. November 2003. vol.26 no.44.