Intellectual Property Law
New Matter VOLUME 50, EDITION 3, FALL 2025
Content
- 2025 New Matter Author Submission Guidelines
- Contents
- Copyright Roundup
- CRISPR-Cas9 Appeal
- Federal Circuit Report
- Inside This Issue
- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION Executive Committee 2025-2026
- INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY SECTION Interest Group Representatives 2025-2026
- IP and Art: An International Perspective
- Letter from the Chair
- Letter from the Editor-in-Chief
- MCLE Self-Study Article
- Ninth Circuit Report
- Online Cle For Participatory Credit
- Quarterly International IP Law Update
- The California Lawyers Association Intellectual Property Alumni
- The European Patent Corner
- The Licensing Corner
- Trade Secrets: An Interview with Chris Buntel of Tangibly
- TTAB Decisions and Developments
- Contract Ambiguity Leads to Mistrial In $122m Biotech Royalty Dispute: Lessons from Genentech v. Biogen
Contract Ambiguity Leads to Mistrial In $122m Biotech Royalty Dispute: Lessons from Genentech v. Biogen
SOODY TRONSON
STLG Law Firm
THE MISTRIAL AND ITS SIGNIFICANCE
A CALIFORNIA FEDERAL JURY’S INABILITY TO interpret standard, but ambiguous, patent licensing provisions resulted in a mistrial that sent 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., after jurors deadlocked over whether Biogen owed $122 million in royalties for antibody drugs manufactured before patent expiration but sold afterward.1
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 question determines whether biotechnology companies owe millions in "tail royalties" on inventory manufactured under patent protection but commercialized after expiration.