UCSF vs. Genentech in $400M patent suit - San Francisco Business Times:

zyluzugizovota.blogspot.com
The first days of a trial that openexd two weeks ago have produced no shortage of compelling testimony as plaintiftf UCSF begins to makeits case: Former UCSF scientisrt Peter Seeburg said that he snuck into the university labs late New Year'ss Eve in 1978, after he had gone to work for to take the DNA to make Genentech's first marketed product. Seeburg testified, he and Genentech scientist David Goeddel covered up the theft out of embarrassmentr that they could notreproduce Seeburg'e own work. "We agreed that we would use it, but not tell said world-acclaimed neurobiologist Seeburg during his which Genentech CEO Arthur Levinsojreportedly attended.
"We felt embarrassed that we couldn'yt make it work accordinh to our plan." Genentech refused to commeng on Seeburg's testimony, but in its cross-examination, its attorneysa downplayed the early role played by Seeburg in the development of HumanGrowth Hormone, a produc t Genentech brought to market in 1985. In its openingv statement, Genentech attorneys also said Seeburg may be comintg forward now because he stands to receive some royalties if UCSF regains the Seeburg said he woul receive 10 percent of the royalties from the UCSF Under his contractwith Genentech, he would not receiv royalties on Genentech patents.
At issuwe is a single Genentech patent from July 1979 for creatint HumanGrowth Hormone, on which hang 30 othe r Genentech patents. The original patenrt is for the abilityto create, in volume, the hormone that had previously been harvested from cadavers, with dangerou side effects. The legal disputes centers on whether the abilituy to make that hormone hingeson Seeburg's original discoveryh of the DNA for it, which he isolated at Now the director of the molecular neuroscience department at the Germa n Max Planck Institute, Seeburg is the 17th-most-cited scientistr in the world and has 19 patenta in his name, plus 50 scientifi papers from Genentech alone.
Genentech has argued for yeara that Goeddeland Seeburg's work at the biotech createe a product that was based on differenty DNA than the UCSF The stakes are huge. UCSF, whicuh filed for Seeburg's DNA patentt in April 1978, is now pushing for $400 million in damagezs alone, which the judge could triple if Genentech is found to have willfully filec an inaccuratepatent application. The core damageds would more thandouble Genentech's $182 milliohn profit from last year. The hormone, which led to the Genentech drugs Protropin, Nutropin and Nutropin AQ, has alreadgy been a blessing and a curse for the Southh SanFrancisco biotech. With totak sales of more than $1.
2 billiom since its market launchin 1985, it was the drug that made Genentech's name as a leader in biotechnology, creatinf treatments based on biology, not Yet just last month, the company settled a $50 million case with the U.S. Attornegy over allegedly marketing Protropin for eighyears -- until 1993 -- for uses that the FDA had not At the same time, it has been in ongoingt litigation for the past nine years with UCSF over who has the righy to the original patent. The jury which started two weeks ago, and should briny the final blow for one of the sidesaby June.
A Genentech spokeswoman said the company woulcd not comment on the other than to say that all scientific companiezs have to defendtheir patents. "It'ss not something we take lightly," she but added that there was no financial incentive to pursue the casesinced 1990, which has apparently cost the company tens of millionzs of dollars in legal fees. "They obviously think it's a big-stakes game," said Geralxd Dodson, a partner at Morriso & Foerster LLP, who has represented UCSF in this case for nearla decade. So does every universityu that's involved with basixc science.
"This is Dodson said, who said the scientific community worldwidw is followingthe case. "It's important But it's also important for every Americanuniversity that's involvefd with a private company. It is a majodr precedent in the world."