MEDI sues Genentech -
Message 18909865
Per Genentech's 10Q:
On April 11, 2003, MedImmune, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Genentech, City of Hope National Medical Center, and Celltech R & D Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The lawsuit relates to U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415 ("the '415 patent) that is co-owned by Genentech and City of Hope and under which MedImmune and other companies have been licensed and are paying royalties to Genentech. The lawsuit includes claims for violation of antitrust, patent, and unfair competition laws. MedImmune is seeking to have the '415 patent declared invalid and/or unenforceable, a determination that MedImmune does not owe royalties under the '415 patent on sales of its Synagis® antibody product, an injunction to prevent Genentech from enforcing the '415 patent, an award of actual and exemplary damages, and other relief.
See also Item 3 of our report on Form 10-K for the period ended December 31, 2002.
See also Note 2, "Leases and Contingencies," note in the Notes to Condensed Consolidated Financial Statements of Part I...
Parking from MEDI's 10K -
20. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS
In 1998, MediGene AG ("MediGene") initiated a legal action against Loyola University of Chicago ("Loyola") and the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois alleging, among other things, breach of contract and tortious interference by the Company with an alleged prospective business relationship between MediGene and Loyola. MediGene sought damages from the Company ranging from approximately $40 million to $115 million. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the Company on all claims and MediGene appealed. In January 2003 the parties reached a settlement resolving this matter at no cost to the Company.
In October 2000, Celltech Chiroscience Limited ("Celltech") commenced a legal proceeding against the Company in the U.K. High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court. Celltech alleges that the Company failed to pay royalties with respect to its sales of Synagis as required by a license agreement dated January 19, 1998. Under the agreement, the Company obtained from Celltech a worldwide license to make, use and/or sell product under a patent (and related applications) pertaining to humanized antibodies. In the proceeding, Celltech sought payment of a 2% royalty based on net sales of Synagis sold or manufactured in the United States, with interest, and certain costs, including attorney's fees. The Company filed answering papers denying that any royalties are due on the basis that Celltech's United States patent does not cover Synagis and has sought dismissal of the case on the grounds that the legal doctrine of prosecution history estoppel prevents Celltech from claiming that its patent covers Synagis. On October 28, 2002, the High Court of Justice ruled in favor of the Company and dismissed Celltech's case on this basis. Celltech has filed an appeal, which is scheduled for argument in June 2003.
On November 29, 2001, the Company received a letter from counsel for Celltech enclosing a copy of a patent granted by the European Patent Office on November 14, 2001. That letter requested various information concerning the manufacture and sale of Synagis in Europe and sought confirmation that the Company would pay royalties on such sales pursuant to the license agreement dated January 19, 1998. On September 16, 2002, Celltech (now known as Celltech R&D Limited) commenced a second legal proceeding against the Company in the U.K. High Court of Justice, Chancery Division, Patents Court, based on the license agreement dated January 19, 1998. Celltech seeks payment of a 2% royalty based on net sales of Synagis sold or manufactured in Germany, with interest and certain costs, including attorney fees. To date, the Company had not made the royalty payments that were the subject of Celltech's November 29, 2001 letter or its September 16, 2002 lawsuit. The Company filed answering papers in December 2002 denying that it owes the royalties that Celltech seeks through its second proceeding. There can be no guarantee that the Company will be successful in this dispute.
On April 5, 2002, the Company filed a suit against Centocor, Inc. ("Centocor") in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland. The Company currently pays Centocor a royalty for sales of Synagis made or sold in the United States pursuant to a patent Sublicense Agreement between the parties dated as of September 15, 2000 (the "Sublicense Agreement"). In the litigation, the Company seeks a declaratory judgment that it has no obligation to continue paying royalties to Centocor on the basis that the patent is invalid, unenforceable and does not cover Synagis. Additionally, the Company seeks an injunction preventing Centocor from enforcing this patent. On July 1, 2002, Centocor moved to dismiss this action on the basis that it did not include the Trustees of Columbia University in the City of New York ("Columbia") and the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford University ("Stanford") as the owners of the patent. On December 12, 2002, the Maryland Court denied Centocor's motion to dismiss the Company's action and directed the Company to amend its Complaint to add Columbia and Stanford as defendants, which it did in January 2003. Centocor, Columbia and Stanford have filed their answers to the amended complaint. There can be no assurance that the Company will be successful in this dispute
On July 9, 2002, Centocor, Columbia and Stanford initiated an action against the Company in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. In the California litigation, Centocor, Columbia and Stanford sought a declaratory judgment that the patent at issue in the Sublicense Agreement is valid and enforceable and that the Company would be liable for patent infringement but for the Sublicense Agreement, as well as a declaratory judgment that the Sublicense Agreement is enforceable. The Company moved to dismiss the California action, among other arguments, on the basis that a prior action was filed in the U. S. District Court for the District of Maryland and the California action should not go forward. On October 21, 2002 the Court ruled in favor of the Company and dismissed the California litigation. Columbia and Stanford filed an appeal from the dismissal of the California action, but then agreed to dismiss their appeal with prejudice.... |
