In the case of MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., MedImmune Incorporated, herein referred to as the plaintiff, took legal action against Genetech Incorporated, herein referred to as the respondent. The lawsuit established by the plaintiff asserted that the respondent had a patent that was null and therefore unsupportable. According to the plaintiff, an agreement was established between the plaintiff and the respondent that obligated the plaintiff to supply the respondent with royalties gained from the utilization of one of the Genetech Incorporated's patents: the Cabilly II Patent. The plaintiff, in good faith, had met all of the financial obligations of the agreement between the two parties; however, the respondent had been engaged in a different case over the Cabilly II patent, losing the claim to the patent. The plaintiff MedImmune Incorporated, in turn, was seeking a return payment of all prior fees paid based on the assertion that the patent was void.
The case was brought before the District Court and dismissed: the court cited the argument that the District Court held no jurisdiction over the subject in question. MedImmune Incorporated appealed the case to the Ninth District Court of Appeals that agreed with the dismissal decision provided by the lower court. The case was than brought before the Supreme Court, and the court decided to overturn the decisions of the lower courts, and remanded the case for further review. The Supreme Court ruled that the lower courts were mistaken when they asserted no jurisdiction over the matter.
Click here to learn more about Steven Jannace of Simmons, Jannace & Stagg