City of Hope v. Genentech
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Filed 11/22/04 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION TWO CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. B161549 (Los Angeles County Super. Ct. No. BC215152) ORDER MODIFYING OPINION AND DENYING REHEARING GENENTECH, INC., [NO CHANGE IN JUDGMENT] Defendant and Appellant. THE COURT: It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 21, 2004, be modified as follows: 1. On page 10, the second sentence of the second full paragraph, deleted the words received millions of dollars from licensing and replace with licensed so the sentence reads: Also, Genentech licensed the Riggs-Itakura patents to third parties, including but not limited to: Eli Lilly, KabiGen, Hoffman-La Roche, Monsanto, Boehringer-Ingelheim, Mitsubishi Chemical Industries (Mitsubishi), SmithKline Beechum (SmithKline), Cambridge Biotech, Chiron, Delca Biotechnology, E. Merck, Life Technologies, Repligen, Research and Diagnostic Systems, Sandoz, Seragen, Shionogi, Sunnery, Takeda Chemical Industries (Takeda), and Wyeth-Ayerst. 2. On page 21, the second sentence of the second full paragraph, the words of products manufactured using a Riggs-Itakura patent it acquired under the agreement are to be inserted between the words sales and , and so that the sentence reads: Nowhere else did the first draft refer to a royalty rate for Genentech s sales of products manufactured using a Riggs-Itakura patent it acquired under the agreement, and nowhere else did it provide a blank for the royalty rate. There is no change in the judgment. Defendant and Appellant s petition for rehearing is denied. 2
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
