Arbitral Digest

Matter

Genentech v. Hoechst (ICC Case No. 8445)

ICC arbitration concerning Genentech’s royalty claims under a biotechnology licence, with French proceedings relating to the award and the referral of legal issues.

  • International commercial arbitration

Procedural record

  1. 5 September 2012Arbitration

    5 September 2012Arbitration

    Third Partial Award issued in Paris on 5 September 2012

    International Court of Arbitration of the ICC

    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

    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

    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.

    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
    Acquaviva
    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.

    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
    Acquaviva
    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.

    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
    Acquaviva
    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

    1 year, 1 month and 26 days later · 421 days

  7. 18 November 2015France

    18 November 2015France

    Judgment of the French Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, in appeal No. Z 14-26.482 dated 18 November 2015

    French Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber

    Case no.
    Z 14-26.482
    Decision summary
    The Court of Cassation rejected the appeal arising from the Paris Court of Appeal decision of 23 September 2014 concerning the 5 September 2012 third partial award.
  8. 18 November 2015France

    18 November 2015France

    Judgment of the French Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber, in appeal No. Z 14-26.483 dated 18 November 2015

    French Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber

    Decision summary
    The French Court of Cassation rejected Hoechst GmbH and Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH's appeal concerning the annulment proceedings relating to the arbitral addendum of 22 May 2013, ordered them to pay costs, and ordered payment of EUR 1,500 to Genentech Inc. under Article 700 of the French Code of Civil Procedure.

    Participants

    Hoechst GmbH
    Representative
    SCP Bénabent et Jéhannin (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH
    Representative
    SCP Bénabent et Jéhannin (For: Hoechst GmbH · Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH)
    Genentech Inc.
    French Court of Cassation, First Civil Chamber

    Authorities cited

    2
    • Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union
      statute
    • French Code of Civil Procedure
      statute

Matter record

Report a correction

Genentech v. Hoechst (ICC Case No. 8445) · Matter