City of Hope Nat. Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc.

Full title: CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v…

Court: California Court of Appeals, Second District, Second Division

Date published: Oct 29, 2004

No. B161549 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 29, 2004)

Opinion

Page 1501b

123 Cal.App.4th 1501b __ Cal.Rptr.3d __ CITY OF HOPE NATIONAL MEDICAL CENTER, Plaintiff and Respondent, v. GENENTECH, INC., Defendant and Appellant. B161549 California Court of Appeal, Second District, Second Division November 22, 2004

Los Angeles County, Super. Ct. No. BC215152

THE COURT:

It is ordered that the opinion filed herein on October 21, 2004, (123 Cal.App.4th 306;___Cal.Rptr.3d___), be modified as follows:

1. On page 10, the second sentence of the second full paragraph [123 Cal.App.4th 319, advance report, 3d par.], 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 [123 Cal.App.4th 328, advance report, 5th par.], 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.