Arbitral Digest

Matter

Genentech Inc. v Hoechst GmbH and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH

  1. 5 September 2012Arbitration

    5 September 2012Arbitration

    Third Partial Award issued in Paris on 5 September 2012

    International Court of Arbitration of the ICC

    Supporting details

    3 participants
    Genentech Inc.
    Hoechst GmbH
    Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
    International Court of Arbitration of the ICC

    5 months and 20 days later · 173 days

  2. 25 February 2013Arbitration

    25 February 2013Arbitration

    Final Award issued in Paris on 25 February 2013

    International Court of Arbitration of the ICC

    Supporting details

    3 participants
    Genentech Inc.
    Hoechst GmbH
    Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
    International Court of Arbitration of the ICC

    2 months and 27 days later · 86 days

  3. 22 May 2013Arbitration

    22 May 2013Arbitration

    Addendum issued in Paris on 22 May 2013

    International Court of Arbitration of the ICC

    Supporting details

    3 participants
    Genentech Inc.
    Hoechst GmbH
    Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
    International Court of Arbitration of the ICC

    1 year, 4 months and 1 day later · 489 days

  4. 23 September 2014France

    23 September 2014France

    Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal in case RG 12/21810 dated 23 September 2014

    Paris Court of Appeal, Division 1 - Chamber 1

    Decision summary
    Before deciding Genentech's application to annul the third partial award, the court referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union the question whether EU competition law permits a patent licence to require royalties for use of licensed patent rights after the patents are annulled. It stayed the proceedings pending that ruling, removed the case from the docket, and reserved costs.

    Supporting details

    5 authorities · 13 participants
    Genentech Inc.
    Representative
    Luca De Maria (For: Genentech Inc.)
    Representative
    Emmanuel Gaillard (For: Genentech Inc.)
    Representative
    Elie Kleiman (For: Genentech Inc.)
    Hoechst GmbH
    Representative
    Alain Fisselier (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Representative
    Amet van Hooft (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Representative
    Marion Barbier (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
    Representative
    Alain Fisselier (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Representative
    Amet van Hooft (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Representative
    Marion Barbier (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Paris Court of Appeal, Division 1 - Chamber 1
    Judge
    Guihal
    Judge
    Dallery
    Other
    Institutional administrator
    Pate

    Authorities cited

    5
    • Treaty establishing the European Community, Article 81 (Article 81 EC Treaty)
      treaty
    • Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 101 (Article 101 TFEU)
      treaty
    • German Civil Code, Article 242 (§ 242 German Civil Code)
      statute
    • French Code of Civil Procedure, Article 1520(5) (Article 1520(5) French Code of Civil Procedure)
      statute
    • European Commission Guidelines on technology transfer agreements (Commission Communication of 27 April 2004, Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) EC to technology transfer agreements, OJ 2004/C 101/2)
      guidelines
  5. 23 September 2014France

    23 September 2014France

    Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal in case RG 13/09296 dated 23 September 2014

    Paris Court of Appeal, Division 1 - Chamber 1

    Decision summary
    The court stayed the proceedings concerning Genentech's applications to annul the third partial award, final award, and addendum until the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on whether EU competition law permits royalties under a patent licence after annulment of the licensed patents. The case was removed from the docket pending that ruling, with costs reserved.

    Supporting details

    3 authorities · 15 participants
    Genentech Inc.
    Representative
    Luca De Maria (For: Genentech Inc.)
    Representative
    SELARL Pellerin-De Maria - Guerre (For: Genentech Inc.)
    Representative
    Emmanuel Gaillard (For: Genentech Inc.)
    Representative
    Elie Kleiman (For: Genentech Inc.)
    Hoechst GmbH
    Representative
    Alain Fisselier (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Representative
    SCP AFG (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Representative
    Amet van Hooft (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Representative
    Marion Barbier (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
    Representative
    Alain Fisselier (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Representative
    SCP AFG (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Representative
    Amet van Hooft (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Representative
    Marion Barbier (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Paris Court of Appeal, Division 1 - Chamber 1
    Judge
    Guihal
    Judge
    Dallery
    Other
    Institutional administrator
    Pate

    Authorities cited

    3
    • Treaty establishing the European Community, Article 81 (Article 81 EC Treaty)
      treaty
    • Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 101 (Article 101 TFEU)
      treaty
    • European Commission Guidelines on technology transfer agreements (Commission Communication of 27 April 2004, Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) EC to technology transfer agreements, OJ 2004/C 101/2)
      guidelines
  6. 23 September 2014France

    23 September 2014France

    Judgment of the Paris Court of Appeal in case RG 13/17187 dated 23 September 2014

    Paris Court of Appeal, Division 1 - Chamber 1

    Decision summary
    The court stayed Genentech's application to annul the addendum to the final award until the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled on whether EU competition law permits royalties under a patent licence after annulment of the licensed patents. The case was removed from the docket pending that ruling, with costs reserved.

    Supporting details

    3 authorities · 13 participants
    Genentech Inc.
    Representative
    Luca De Maria (For: Genentech Inc.)
    Representative
    Emmanuel Gaillard (For: Genentech Inc.)
    Representative
    Elie Kleiman (For: Genentech Inc.)
    Hoechst GmbH
    Representative
    Alain Fisselier (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Representative
    Amet van Hooft (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Representative
    Marion Barbier (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
    Representative
    Alain Fisselier (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Representative
    Amet van Hooft (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Representative
    Marion Barbier (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Paris Court of Appeal, Division 1 - Chamber 1
    Judge
    Guihal
    Judge
    Dallery
    Other
    Institutional administrator
    Pate

    Authorities cited

    3
    • Treaty establishing the European Community, Article 81 (Article 81 EC Treaty)
      treaty
    • Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Article 101 (Article 101 TFEU)
      treaty
    • European Commission Guidelines on technology transfer agreements (Commission Communication of 27 April 2004, Guidelines on the application of Article 81(3) EC to technology transfer agreements, OJ 2004/C 101/2)
      guidelines

Matter record

Report a correction

Genentech Inc. v Hoechst GmbH and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH · Matter