Uploaded March 2025 | Updated September 2026, 3 weeks ago
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
MedImmune Inc. v. Genentech Inc.
United States Supreme Court
549 U.S. 118 (2007)
In MedImmune versus Genentech, the United States Supreme Court answered whether a patent licensee's action challenging the validity of the patent satisfied article three's case or controversy requirement even though the licensee hadn't breached the licensing agreement.
MedImmune produced and marketed a respiratory drug known as Synagis. In nineteen ninety seven, MedImmune entered into a licensing agreement with Gen for an existing antibodies patent and a pending patent application.
In two thousand one, the pending patent in the licensing agreement matured into Genentech's patent known as Cabilly II.
After receiving its patent, Genentech notified MedImmune that Synagis was covered by the Cabilly II patent. As a result, Genentech informed MedImmune that it must start paying Genentech royalties.
MedImmune believed that the Cabilly II patent was invalid and unenforceable.
However, MedImmune didn't want Genentech to enforce the patent and prevent MedImmune from selling Synagis, so MedImmune paid royalties to Genentech under protest.
MedImmune then sued Genentech, seeking a declaratory judgment to have Genentech's Cabilly II patent declared invalid. Genentech filed a motion to dismiss MedImmune's claim based on the holding from Genprobe versus Vysus, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a patent licensee in good standing who challenges the validity of a patent can't satisfy the case or controversy requirement of article three of the United States constitution.
MedImmune appealed. The court of appeals affirmed.
MedImmune appealed again. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/medimmune-inc-v-genentech-inc
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/medimmune-inc-v-genentech-inc
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
Get more case briefs explained with Quimbee. Quimbee has over 42,700 case briefs (and counting) keyed to 988 casebooks ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
MedImmune Inc. v. Genentech Inc.
United States Supreme Court
549 U.S. 118 (2007)
In MedImmune versus Genentech, the United States Supreme Court answered whether a patent licensee's action challenging the validity of the patent satisfied article three's case or controversy requirement even though the licensee hadn't breached the licensing agreement.
MedImmune produced and marketed a respiratory drug known as Synagis. In nineteen ninety seven, MedImmune entered into a licensing agreement with Gen for an existing antibodies patent and a pending patent application.
In two thousand one, the pending patent in the licensing agreement matured into Genentech's patent known as Cabilly II.
After receiving its patent, Genentech notified MedImmune that Synagis was covered by the Cabilly II patent. As a result, Genentech informed MedImmune that it must start paying Genentech royalties.
MedImmune believed that the Cabilly II patent was invalid and unenforceable.
However, MedImmune didn't want Genentech to enforce the patent and prevent MedImmune from selling Synagis, so MedImmune paid royalties to Genentech under protest.
MedImmune then sued Genentech, seeking a declaratory judgment to have Genentech's Cabilly II patent declared invalid. Genentech filed a motion to dismiss MedImmune's claim based on the holding from Genprobe versus Vysus, in which the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that a patent licensee in good standing who challenges the validity of a patent can't satisfy the case or controversy requirement of article three of the United States constitution.
MedImmune appealed. The court of appeals affirmed.
MedImmune appealed again. The United States Supreme Court granted cert.
Want more details on this case? Get the rule of law, issues, holding and reasonings, and more case facts here: quimbee.com/cases/medimmune-inc-v-genentech-inc
The Quimbee App features over 42,700 case briefs keyed to 988 casebooks. Try it free for 7 days! ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Have Questions about this Case? Submit your questions and get answers from a real attorney here: quimbee.com/cases/medimmune-inc-v-genentech-inc
Did we just become best friends? Stay connected to Quimbee here:
Subscribe to our YouTube Channel ► youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=QuimbeeDotCom
Quimbee Case Brief App ► quimbee.com/case-briefs-overview
Facebook ► facebook.com/quimbeedotcom
Twitter ► twitter.com/quimbeedotcom
#casebriefs #lawcases #casesummaries
