A California federal jury’s inability to interpret standard patent licensing provisions has resulted in a mistrial that sends shockwaves through the biotechnology licensing community. On July 3, 2025, U.S. District Judge Yvonne Gonzalez Rogers declared a mistrial in Genentech Inc. v. Biogen MA Inc., Case No. 4:23-cv-00909 (N.D. Cal.), after jurors deadlocked over whether Biogen owed $122 million in royalties for antibody drugs manufactured before patent expiration but sold afterward.
The case represents far more than a simple contract dispute between pharmaceutical titans. It exposes a critical ambiguity lurking in countless biopharmaceutical license agreements: precisely when does the obligation to pay royalties accrue? The answer to this seemingly technical question determines whether biotechnology companies owe millions in “tail royalties” on inventory manufactured under patent protection but commercialized after expiration
Read the full article below.
To learn more about us and connect, please visit HERE.
Notice and Disclaimer
The content in this article (and site) is merely intended as a non-exhaustive informational resource. The best practice is to find someone who has the expertise necessary to provide you with meaningful legal advice. The information in this article (and site) neither constitute legal advice nor creates an attorney-client relationship. Readers should not act upon this information without seeking professional counsel. This information is provided without any knowledge as to the reader’s industry, identity, or specific circumstances. The application and impact of relevant laws will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. There may also be delays, omissions, or inaccuracies in information contained in this article (and site). Material contained in this article (and site) may be considered advertising under the professional rules of conduct. The hiring of a lawyer is an important decision that should not be based solely on advertisements.