Medimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

Decision Date09 January 2007
Docket NumberNo. 05–608.,05–608.
CitationMedimmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 127 S.Ct. 764, 166 L.Ed.2d 604, 549 U.S. 118, 75 BNA USLW 4034 (2007)
PartiesMEDIMMUNE, INC., Petitioner, v. GENENTECH, INC., et al.
CourtU.S. Supreme Court

OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE

Syllabus*

After the parties entered into a patent license agreement covering, inter alia,respondents'then-pending patent application, the application matured into the “Cabilly II” patent.RespondentGenentech, Inc., sent petitioner a letter stating that Synagis, a drug petitioner manufactured, was covered by the Cabilly II patent and that petitioner owed royalties under the agreement.Although petitioner believed no royalties were due because the patent was invalid and unenforceable and because Synagis did not infringe the patent's claims, petitioner considered the letter a clear threat to enforce the patent, terminate the license agreement, and bring a patent infringement action if petitioner did not pay.Because such an action could have resulted in petitioner's being ordered to pay treble damages and attorney's fees and enjoined from selling Synagis, which accounts for more than 80 percent of its sales revenue, petitioner paid the royalties under protest and filed this action for declaratory and other relief.The District Court dismissed the declaratory-judgment claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because, under Federal Circuit precedent, a patent licensee in good standing cannot establish an Article III case or controversy with regard to the patent's validity, enforceability, or scope.The Federal Circuit affirmed.

Held:

1.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.Pp. 768 – 770.

2.The Federal Circuit erred in affirming the dismissal of this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.The standards for determining whether a particular declaratory-judgment action satisfies the case-or-controversy requirement— i.e., “whether the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant” relief, Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co.,312 U.S. 270, 273, 61 S.Ct. 510, 85 L.Ed. 826—are satisfied here even though petitioner did not refuse to make royalty payments under the license agreement.Where threatened government action is concerned, a plaintiff is not required to expose himself to liability before bringing suit to challenge the basis for the threat.His own action (or inaction) in failing to violate the law eliminates the imminent threat of prosecution, but nonetheless does not eliminate Article III jurisdiction because the threat-eliminating behavior was effectively coerced.Similarly, where the plaintiff's self-avoidance of imminent injury is coerced by the threatened enforcement action of a private partyrather than the government, lower federal and state courts have long accepted jurisdiction.In its only decision in point, this Court held that a licensee's failure to cease its royalty payments did not render nonjusticiable a dispute over the patent's validity.Altvater v. Freeman,319 U.S. 359, 364, 63 S.Ct. 1115, 87 L.Ed. 1450.Though Altvater involved an injunction, it acknowledged that the licensees had the option of stopping payments in defiance of the injunction, but that the consequence of doing so would be to risk “actual [and] treble damages in infringement suits” by the patentees, a consequence also threatened in this case.Id., at 365, 63 S.Ct. 1115.Respondents' assertion that the parties in effect settled this dispute when they entered into their license agreement is mistaken.Their appealto the common-law rule that a party to a contract cannot both challenge its validity and continue to reap its benefits is also unpersuasive.Lastly, because it was raised for the first time here, this Court does not decide respondents' request to affirm the dismissal of the declaratory-judgment claims on discretionary grounds.That question and any merits-based arguments for denial of declaratory relief are left for the lower courts on remand.Pp. 770 – 777.

427 F.3d 958, reversed and remanded.

SCALIA, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C.J., and STEVENS, KENNEDY, SOUTER, GINSBURG, BREYER, and ALITO, JJ., joined.THOMAS, J., filed a dissenting opinion, post, p. 777.

John G. Kester, Washington, DC, for petitioner.

Deanne E. Maynard for the United States as amicus curiae, by special leave of the Court, supporting the petitioner.

Maureen E. Mahoney, Washington, DC, for respondents.

Harvey Kurzweil, Aldo A. Badini, Henry J. Ricardo, Dewey Ballantine LLP, New York City, William C. Bertrand, Jr., Jonathan Klein–Evans, Gaithersburg, Maryland, John G. Kester, Counsel of Record, Paul B. Gaffney, Janet C. Fisher, Aaron P. Maurer, Michael T. Morley, Williams & Connolly LLP, Washington, D.C., Elliot M. Olstein, Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart & Olstein, Roseland, New Jersey, for petitioner.

Daniel M. Wall, Mark A. Flagel, James K. Lynch, Latham & Watkins LLP, San Francisco, CA, Maureen E. Mahoney, Counsel of Record, J. Scott Ballenger, Nathaniel A. Vitan, Amanda P. Biles, Jeffrey Manns, Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC, Roy E. Hofer, Meredith Martin, Addy Brinks, Hofer Gilson & Lione, Chicago, IL, John W. Keker, Mark A. Lemley, Keker & Van Nest LLP, San Francisco, CA, for respondentGenentech, Inc.

Joseph M. Lipner, Laura W. Brill, Jason Linder, Alana B. Hoffman, Irell & Manella LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Robert W. Stone, Gregory D. Schetina, Duarte, CA, Paul M. Smith, Counsel of Record, William M. Hohengarten, Ian Heath Gershengorn, Scott B. Wilkens, Jenner & Block LLP, Washington, DC, for respondentCity of Hope.

Justice SCALIAdelivered the opinion of the Court.

We must decide whether Article III's limitation of federal courts' jurisdiction to Cases and “Controversies,” reflected in the “actual controversy” requirement of the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), requires a patent licenseeto terminate or be in breach of its license agreement before it can seek a declaratory judgment that the underlying patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed.

I

Because the declaratory-judgment claims in this case were disposed of at the motion-to-dismiss stage, we take the following facts from the allegations in petitioner's amended complaint and the unopposed declarations that petitioner submitted in response to the motion to dismiss.PetitionerMedImmune, Inc., manufactures Synagis, a drug used to prevent respiratory tract disease in infants and young children.In 1997, petitioner entered into a patent license agreement with respondentGenentech, Inc.(which acted on behalf of itself as patent assignee and on behalf of the coassignee, respondentCity of Hope).The license covered an existing patent relating to the production of “chimeric antibodies” and a then-pending patent application relating to “the coexpression of immunoglobulin chains in recombinant host cells.”Petitioner agreed to pay royalties on sales of “Licensed Products,” and respondents granted petitioner the right to make, use, and sell them.The agreement defined “Licensed Products” as a specified antibody, “the manufacture, use or sale of which ... would, if not licensed under th[e] Agreement, infringe one or more claims of either or both of [the covered patents,] which have neither expired nor been held invalid by a court or other body of competent jurisdiction from which no appeal has been or may be taken.”App. 399.The license agreement gave petitioner the right to terminate upon six months' written notice.

In December 2001, the “coexpression” application covered by the 1997 license agreement matured into the “Cabilly II” patent.Soon thereafter, respondent Genentech delivered petitioner a letter expressing its belief that Synagis was covered by the Cabilly II patent and its expectation that petitioner would pay royalties beginning March 1, 2002.Petitioner did not think royalties were owing, believing that the Cabilly II patent was invalid and unenforceable,1 and that its claims were in any event not infringed by Synagis.Nevertheless, petitioner considered the letter to be a clear threat to enforce the Cabilly II patent, terminate the 1997 license agreement, and sue for patent infringement if petitioner did not make royalty payments as demanded.If respondents were to prevail in a patent infringement action, petitioner could be ordered to pay treble damages and attorney's fees, and could be enjoined from selling Synagis, a product that has accounted for more than 80 percent of its revenue from sales since 1999.Unwilling to risk such serious consequences, petitioner paid the demanded royalties “under protest and with reservation of all of [its] rights.”Id., at 426.This declaratory-judgment action followed.

Petitioner sought the declaratory relief discussed in detail in Part II below.Petitioner also requested damages and an injunction with respect to other federal and state claims not relevant here.The District Court granted respondents' motion to dismiss the declaratory-judgment claims for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, relying on the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Gen–Probe Inc. v. Vysis, Inc.,359 F.3d 1376(2004).Gen–Probe had held that a patent licensee in good standing cannot establish an Article III case or controversy with regard to validity, enforceability, or scope of the patent because the license agreement “obliterate[s] any reasonable apprehension” that the licensee will be sued for infringement.Id., at 1381.The Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court, also relying on Gen–Probe.427 F.3d 958(2005).We granted certiorari.546 U.S....

Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI

Get Started for Free

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant

  • Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database

  • Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength

  • Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities

  • Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

vLex
2173 cases
  • Intel Corp. v. Tela Innovations, Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • October 05, 2018
    ...or controversy. Opp. 6. I find that Intel has alleged facts that show a dispute "of sufficient immediacy and reality" exists between the parties, and there is no evidence that the time passed has served to diminish it. See MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 127.A. There Is An Actual Controversy Between Intel and Tela Tela argues that there is no case or controversy between the parties based on pre-NDA conduct because it did not threaten legal action, impose deadlines to respond, engage in substantivealleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment." MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007), reversed-in-part on other grounds sub nom. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2017 (2013). The Federal Circuit has held that a declaratory judgment plaintiff must allege "(1) anId. I find that the facts Intel alleges are sufficient to establish that there is "a substantial controversy" between the parties that is "of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment." See MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 127. On January 27, 2015, Kenneth Dyer of Tela told Keith Gray of Intel that Intel products infringed on Tela's 1D gridded layout patent family and that Tela could prove that infringement with claim charts based on the reverse...
  • Ucp Int'l Co. v. Balsam Brands Inc.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • May 09, 2017
    ...circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legal interests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment." MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. , 549 U.S. 118, 127, 127 S.Ct. 764, 166 L.Ed.2d 604 (2007), reversed-in-part on other grounds sub nom. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc. , 569 U.S. 576, 133 S.Ct. 2107, 186 L.Ed.2d 124 (2013). The Federal Circuit has held that toRegardless of Balsam's claims regarding its intent to sue UCP, UCP may establish a justiciable controversy by showing "(1) an affirmative act by the patentee related to the enforcement of his patent rights, and (2) meaningful preparation to conduct potentially infringing activity." MedImmune , at 1318, 127 S.Ct. 764 (internal citations omitted). UCP has satisfied this burden.I. AFFIRMATIVE ACTS Balsam's litigation against Frontgate was an affirmative act by Balsam to enforce its patentconsidered bringing an infringement action against UCP, but ultimately decided not to, not because it lacked a justiciable controversy, but because it was not "interested." This conduct constitutes sufficient "affirmative acts" under MedImmune ."Article III jurisdiction may be met where the patentee takes a position that puts the declaratory judgment plaintiff in the position of either pursuing arguably illegal behavior or abandoning that which he claims a right to do." SanDisk Corp....
  • Dolby Labs. v. Intertrust Techs. Corp.
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Northern District of California
    • November 06, 2019
    ...ORDERED.Dated: November 6, 2019 /s/_________ EDWARD M. CHEN United States District Judge 1. The eleven patents are as follows:• '721.• '304.• '815.• '602.• '603.• '342.• '157.• '158.• '610.• '106.• '627.See FAC ¶¶ 10-20. 2. In MedImmune, "the Supreme Court rejected [the Federal Circuit's] prior, more stringent standard for declaratory judgment standing insofar as it required a 'reasonable apprehension of imminent suit.'" Arris Grp., Inc. v. British Telecomms. PLC, 639 F.3d 1368, 1373all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse legalinterests, of sufficient immediacy and reality to warrant the issuance of a declaratory judgment."[2] MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007), reversed-in-part on other grounds sub nom. Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 569 U.S. 576 (2013) [emphasis added]. The Federal Circuit has held that a declaratory judgment plaintiff must904-05. Intertrust has engaged in "conduct that can be reasonably inferred as demonstrating intent to enforce a patent," which "can create declaratory judgment jurisdiction."4 Hewlett-Packard, 587 F.3d at 1363; see also MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 127 (stating that, to satisfy Article III's standing requirements, a plaintiff must demonstrate that "the facts alleged, under all the circumstances, show that there is a substantial controversy, between parties having adverse...
  • Ascent v. N.Y. State Educ. Dep't
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York
    • March 31, 2019
    .... . any court of the United States . . . may declare the rights and other legal relations of any interested party seeking such declaration, whether or not further relief is or could be sought." 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a) (emphasis added). A "case of actual controversy" "refers to the type of 'Cases' and 'Controversies' that are justiciable under Article III." MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 126-27, 127 S. Ct. 764, 771, 166 L. Ed. 2d 604 (2007) (citations omitted)....
  • Get Started for Free
58 firm's commentaries
  • IP Update, Vol. 16, No. 6, June 2013
    • United States
    • julho 10, 2013
    ...patent owner has essentially no infringement counterclaim it can bring. Medtronic Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp., U.S., No. 12-1128, May 20, 2013. The question presented for certiorari is as follows: In Medlmmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 137 (2007), this Court ruled that a patent licensee that believes that its products do not infringe the patent and accordingly are not subject to royalty payments is "not required ... to break or terminate its ... license agreement...
  • Myriad Marches Towards The Supreme Court (Again)
    • United States
    • setembro 27, 2012
    ...Servs. v. Prometheus Labs., Inc., 132 S. Ct. 1289 (2012)? Did the court of appeals err in adopting a new and inflexible rule, contrary to normal standing rules and this Court's decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007), that petitioners who have been indisputably deterred by Myriad's "active enforcement" of its patent rights nonetheless lack standing to challenge those patents absent evidence that they have been personally threatened with an infringement...
  • Can ‘Loophole’ in IPR Statute Lead to Resurgence of DJ Actions?
    • United States
    • Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP junho 30, 2020
    ...authors compared the number of complaints identified as DJ complaints to the total number of complaints for each year. 2Id. 3See Cardinal Chem. Co. v. Morton, Int’l, 508 U.S. 83, 98 (1993); MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 132 n.11 (2007); Meds. Co. v. Mylan, Inc., 853 F.3d 1296. 1302 n.1 (Fed. Cir. 2017) (“[A] finding of noninfringement cannot moot a counterclaim of invalidity.” (citing Cardinal Chem, 508 U.S. at 99 4 In 2017, the Supreme...
  • Patent Law And The Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Pending (May 2015)
    • United States
    • maio 05, 2015
    ...Inc., et al., No. 11-725 Questions Presented: Are human genes patentable? Did the court of appeas err in adopting a new and inflexible rule, contrary to normal standing rules and this Court's decision in MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007), that petitioners who have been indisputably deterred by Myriad's "active enforcement" of its patent rights nonetheless lack standing to challenge those patents absent evidence that they have been personally and directly threatened...
  • Get Started for Free
38 books & journal articles
  • The Monster in the Closet: Declawing the Inequitable Conduct Beast in the Attorney-client Privilege Arena
    • United States
    • Georgia State Law Reviews Georgia State University College of Law
    • Invalid date
    ...Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007), rev'g 414 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2005); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), rev'g 119 Fed. Appx. 282 (Fed. Cir. 2005); Medlmmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007), rev'g 427 F.3d 958 (Fed. Cir. 2005). 14. See Robert Hulse, New Rules for U.S. Patent Applications, Mondaq, 2007 WLNR 16534630 (Aug. 24, 2007). 15. Tafas v. Dudas, 511 F. Supp. 2d 652, 656-57...
  • New York intellectual property law review.
    • United States
    • Albany Law Review Albany Law School Miranda, David P.
    • Diciembre 22, 2011
    ...(quoting Funk Bros. Seed Co. v. Kalo Inoculant Co., 333 U.S. 127, 130 (1948)). (205) Bilski, 130 S. Ct. at 3227. (206) MedImmune, Inc. v. Centocor, Inc., 409 F.3d 1376, 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2005), rev'd sub nom. MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 137 (2007). Appeals in patent cases are not decided by the regional circuits, but instead are decided by a specialized appeals court, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, commonly referred to asAss'n for Molecular Pathology, 653 F.3d at 1348 (citing SanDisk Corp., 480 F.3d at 1380-81). (215) Ass'n for Molecular Pathology, 653 F.3d at 1348. (216) Id. (citing MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118, 127 (2007)). (217) Ass'n for Molecular Pathology, 653 F.3d at 1348. (218) See 35 U.S.C. [section] 101 (2010). (219) Ass'n for Molecular Pathology, 653 F.3d at 1348 (quoting Bilski v. Kappos, 130 S. Ct. 3218,...
  • Patent inflation.
    • United States
    • Yale Law Journal Yale University, School of Law Masur, Jonathan S.
    • Diciembre 01, 2011
    ...3218 (2010); Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Elecs., Inc., 553 U.S. 617 (2008); KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007); Microsoft Corp. v. AT&T Corp., 550 U.S. 437 (2007); MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007); eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C., 547 U.S. 388 (2006); Merck KGaA v. Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd., 545 U.S. 193 (2005) ; see also Golden, supra note 34, at 658 ("[T]he Supreme Court has,...
  • Unpredictability in patent law and its effect on pharmaceutical innovation.
    • United States
    • Missouri Law Review University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law Holman, Christopher M.
    • Junio 22, 2011
    ...Inc., 547 U.S. 388, 390 (2006). (150.) Id. at 391. (151.) 549 U.S. 118, 120-21 (2007). (152.) Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., 395 F.3d 1324, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2005), abrogated by MedImmune, Inc. v. Genetech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (emphasis (153.) MedImmune, 549 U.S. at 127 (2007) (quoting Md. Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal and Oil, Co., 312 U.S. 270, 273 (1941)) (internal quotation marks omitted). (154.) LG Elecs., Inc.401 F.3d 1323, 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2005), vacated by 547 U.S. 388 (2006). (147.) See id. (148.) Id. at 1339. (149.) MercExchange, L.L.C. v. eBay Inc., 547 U.S. 388, 390 (2006). (150.) Id. at 391. (151.) 549 U.S. 118, 120-21 (2007). (152.) Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. Pfizer, Inc., 395 F.3d 1324, 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2005), abrogated by MedImmune, Inc. v. Genetech, Inc., 549 U.S. 118 (2007) (emphasis removed). (153.) MedImmune, 549 U.S. at...
  • Get Started for Free