Biotech Ip Licensing Dispute Cases.
Biotech IP disputes often arise due to complex licensing agreements involving:
Patents on genes, proteins, or biological processes
Exclusive or non-exclusive licenses
Royalty disagreements
Ownership of improvements or derivative inventions
The courts carefully interpret license agreements and patent rights to determine obligations.
1. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel, Inc. (Amgen v. Chugai/HMR)
[US District Court, 1999]
Facts
Amgen owned patents on Erythropoietin (EPO), a biotech drug for anemia.
Chugai licensed EPO patents from Amgen but later developed a modified process and disputed royalty obligations.
Legal Issues
Whether royalties were owed on improved processes developed under the license.
Scope of the license: does it include derivative inventions or only the exact patented methods?
Court Reasoning
License agreement explicitly limited royalties to certain patented methods.
Improvements outside the patent claims were not automatically subject to royalties unless covered in the agreement.
Outcome
Court ruled Amgen could claim royalties only for licensed patents, not independently developed improvements.
Principle
License scope is strictly interpreted in biotech; derivative inventions require explicit agreement.
Emphasizes careful drafting for improvements and downstream innovations.
2. Monsanto Co. v. DuPont (1990s–2000s, US)
Facts
Monsanto licensed genetically modified seed technology to DuPont.
Dispute arose over breach of license terms and unauthorized use of proprietary GMO genes in new crops.
Legal Issues
Whether DuPont violated the exclusive license by sublicensing or using the genes beyond the agreed purpose.
Court Reasoning
Courts examined:
Express terms of exclusivity
Limitations on sublicensing
Enforcement of patent rights tied to specific biotechnology applications
Outcome
DuPont found in breach of contract; damages awarded to Monsanto.
Principle
Biotech licenses are closely tied to field-of-use restrictions.
Unauthorized research or commercial use can constitute infringement even under a license agreement.
3. Myriad Genetics v. Ambry Genetics (2010s, US)
Facts
Myriad owned patents on BRCA1 and BRCA2 gene sequences.
Ambry offered genetic testing for the same genes, arguing patent license restrictions and patent exhaustion.
Legal Issues
Whether Myriad’s license agreements prevented third-party testing.
Whether patents cover naturally occurring genes (later invalidated by Supreme Court in Association for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, 2013).
Court Reasoning
Initially, license enforcement tried to restrict independent genetic testing labs.
Courts examined contractual language, exclusivity clauses, and whether patents were enforceable.
Outcome
Myriad could enforce some contractual terms, but gene patents themselves were invalidated, limiting enforceability.
Principle
Biotech licensing disputes are impacted by patentability standards, especially natural phenomena vs engineered sequences.
Contracts must align with current patent law.
4. Harvard College v. Canada / Oncomouse Licensing Dispute (1980s–1990s, International)
Facts
Harvard patented the “Oncomouse”, a genetically modified mouse for cancer research.
Dispute arose over licensing royalties in Canada and Europe, especially regarding academic vs commercial use.
Legal Issues
Should non-profit research institutions pay royalties under biotech licenses?
Enforcement of biotech patents internationally.
Court Reasoning
Courts distinguished academic research (often exempt) vs commercial exploitation.
License agreements must specify territory, usage type, and commercial rights.
Outcome
Harvard collected royalties from commercial use, but not from purely academic research.
Principle
International biotech licensing must clarify research exemptions.
Academic/commercial distinction is crucial.
5. Genentech v. City of Hope / Roche (1989, US)
Facts
Genentech licensed monoclonal antibody technology to City of Hope for research.
Dispute over whether improvements made by licensee should be jointly owned or solely by licensor.
Legal Issues
Ownership of derivative inventions created using licensed technology.
Allocation of royalties from improved inventions.
Court Reasoning
Courts examined agreement language regarding improvement rights.
If the license was silent on derivatives, improvements belonged to licensee unless assignment was required.
Outcome
Licensee allowed to retain improvement rights, but royalties for original patent still owed.
Principle
Biotech licenses must explicitly define ownership of improvements.
Otherwise, derivative inventions may belong to the licensee.
6. Eli Lilly v. Apotex (2005, UK)
Facts
Eli Lilly patented insulin analogues.
Apotex manufactured generic versions under a license but disputed royalty payments and field-of-use restrictions.
Legal Issues
Enforcement of field-of-use restrictions and calculation of royalties.
Court Reasoning
UK courts strictly interpreted license clauses.
Even minor deviations from agreed fields triggered breach and damages.
Outcome
Eli Lilly entitled to royalties; Apotex liable for overstepping license terms.
Principle
In biotech, licensee compliance is strictly monitored, and deviation is actionable.
Highlights the importance of precision in field-of-use clauses.
Comparative Observations
| Case | Jurisdiction | Key Issue | Outcome | Principle |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amgen v. Hoechst | US | Royalties on improvements | Limited to licensed patents | Scope of license strictly interpreted |
| Monsanto v. DuPont | US | Breach of GMO license | Breach found | Field-of-use restrictions enforceable |
| Myriad v. Ambry | US | Gene patents vs testing | Patents invalidated | Contracts must align with patent law |
| Harvard Oncomouse | Intl | Royalties on academic vs commercial use | Commercial royalties enforceable | Academic/commercial distinction important |
| Genentech v. City of Hope | US | Derivative inventions | Licensee owns improvements | Explicit improvement clauses needed |
| Eli Lilly v. Apotex | UK | Field-of-use & royalties | Licensor wins | Strict compliance required |
Key Principles in Biotech IP Licensing Disputes
Scope of License: Must be clear about patents, improvements, and derivative inventions.
Royalty Obligations: Explicit terms on calculation and triggers are essential.
Field-of-Use Restrictions: Licensee cannot exceed permitted usage without breach.
Academic vs Commercial Use: Academic exemptions are often recognized internationally.
Patent Validity Impact: Licensing enforcement depends on current patent law.
Territorial Enforcement: International biotech licensing requires country-specific clauses.
RELATED Blog
comments