Logourl black
From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...

MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

United States Supreme Court
549 U.S. 118 (2007)


Facts

Under the terms of a patent license agreement, Genentech, Inc. (“Genentech”) (defendant) agreed to license an existing patent and a then-pending patent to MedImmune, Inc. (“MedImmune”) (plaintiff) in exchange for royalties paid by MedImmune on the existing patent. MedImmune began manufacturing a drug used to prevent respiratory tract disease in infants and young children called Synagis. Genentech’s pending patent thereafter was approved, called Cabilly II. Genentech argued that Synagis was covered by Cabilly II and demanded that MedImmune pay royalties. MedImmune did not believe it should be required to pay royalties on the basis that Cabilly II was invalid and unenforceable, but did not want to risk a patent infringement suit and possible payment of treble damages. Thus, MedImmune paid royalties under protest and, at the same time, filed a declaratory judgment suit in district court. The court granted Genentech’s motion to dismiss the claims on the ground that the “cases” and “controversies” requirement of Article III of the U.S. Constitution, and U.S. Supreme Court precedent held a license agreement “obliterates any reasonable apprehension” that the licensee will be sued for infringement. Gen-Probe Inc. v. Vysis, Inc., 359 F.3d 1376, 1381 (2004). The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed and MedImmune’s petition for certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court which was granted.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Scalia, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A "yes" or "no" answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.