Supreme Court sides with MedImmune in licensing case

In what is widely being heralded as a crucial test case for biotech companies, the U.S. Supreme Court has overturned an appeals court ruling that forbid MedImmune from suing over a patent as long as it was paying user fees to the patent holder. Other courts held that licensing agreements--an increasingly common strategy employed in biotechnology--created a covenant against suing. But the Supreme Court ruled 8-1 that no such covenant exists, allowing the company that licensed the patent to sue to have that same patent overturned. "Promising to pay royalties on patents that have not been held invalid does not amount to a promise not to seek a holding of their invalidity," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote on behalf of the majority.

Some experts warned that the decision is likely to prompt all companies engaged in licensing to scrutinize their partners far more closely than they have in the past, possibly adding new costs to the licensing process.

- read the report on the decision from The Baltimore Sun

Related Articles:
Big pharma claims Supreme victory. Report
High court rejects generic appeal. Report
Standards on biotech patents get tougher. Report

Suggested Articles

Bristol Myers Squibb may have bounced Jounce from its roster of inherited partners, but it’s hanging onto Anokion, a Swiss autoimmune-focused biotech.

The priority review action date sets Bristol Myers up to win approval for the bluebird-partnered anti-BCMA CAR-T therapy in late March.

The unidentified biotechs are drawn from the portfolio of a €150 million life science-focused fund that Index Ventures set up.