This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to John G. Kester (Petitioner), according to John G. Kester (Petitioner), medImmune (the petitioner) seeks a declaratory judgment that the patent license it pays royalties under is invalid and unenforceable.
According to Dean E. Maynard (Amicus Curiae for United States), according to Dean E. Maynard (Amicus Curiae for United States), the dispute centers on whether the case presents a justiciable case or controversy under Article III of the Constitution.
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice Ginsburg, the Court is also asked whether it has the power to entertain the case, distinguishing power from discretionary equity considerations.
What each side argues
Petitioner (MedImmune, Inc.)
According to John G. Kester (Petitioner), according to John G. Kester (Petitioner), the petitioner argues that the patent is invalid and it should not have to pay royalties.
According to John G. Kester, the petitioner asserts that the contract claim is clear in the record and that the precedent Harvey Steel, relied upon by the respondents, has been overruled.
According to Ms. MAYNARD, the petitioner contends that the licensee does not need to breach the licensing agreement to create a case or controversy and is paying royalties it believes it does not owe.
Respondent (Genentech, Inc.)
According to Ms. MAHONEY, the respondent argues that the contract does not give the licensee a right to bring a court action to dispute the patent’s validity.
According to Ms. MAHONEY, the respondent states that the patent holder is not allowed to seek a declaration of validity in court.
According to Ms. MAHONEY, the respondent characterizes the dispute as a compromise of the very claims the parties are trying to adjudicate, suggesting no separate case or controversy exists.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Kennedy asked whether the provision (the license) is enforceable.
Justice Scalia asked whether the contract gives the licensee a contractual right.
Justice Scalia asked where that right appears in the licensing agreement.
Justice Stevens asked whether the parties could agree to create a case or controversy.
Justice Stevens asked whether the bringing of this action constituted a material breach of an implied condition of the contract that would justify termination of the license.
Justice Ginsburg asked whether the Court has the power to entertain the case, distinguishing power from discretionary equity considerations.
- [1] a8699711549bac2cbaaf-r1-797774137e8c3cf1.pdf, p. 5
- [2] a8699711549bac2cbaaf-r1-797774137e8c3cf1.pdf, p. 22
- [3] a8699711549bac2cbaaf-r1-797774137e8c3cf1.pdf, p. 23
- [4] a8699711549bac2cbaaf-r1-797774137e8c3cf1.pdf, p. 37
- [5] a8699711549bac2cbaaf-r1-797774137e8c3cf1.pdf, p. 56
- [6] a8699711549bac2cbaaf-r1-797774137e8c3cf1.pdf, p. 55
What the Court decided
Why it matters
According to Dean E. Maynard (Amicus Curiae for United States), according to Dean E. Maynard (Amicus Curiae for United States), dean E. Maynard (Amicus Curiae for United States) stated that the dispute is a concrete Article III case or controversy.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- a8699711549bac2cbaaf-r1-797774137e8c3cf1.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 21, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.