Document: 127 S. Ct. 764 (2007) 549 U.S. 118 MEDIMMUNE, INC., Petitioner, v. GENENTECH, et al. No. 05-608. Supreme Court of United States. Argued October 4, 2006. Decided January 9, 2007. *767 John G. Kester, Washington, DC, for petitioner. Deanne E. Maynard the States as amicus curiae, by special leave Court, supporting Maureen Mahoney, respondents. Harvey Kurzweil, Aldo A. Badini, Henry J. Ricardo, Dewey Ballantine LLP, New York City, William C. Bertrand, Jr., Jonathan Klein-Evans, Gaithersburg, Maryland, Counsel Record, Paul B. Gaffney, Janet Fisher, Aaron P. Maurer, Michael T. Morley, Williams & Connolly D.C., Elliot M. Olstein, Carella Byrne Bain Gilfillan Cecchi Stewart Roseland, Jersey, Daniel Wall, Mark Flagel, James K. Lynch, Latham Watkins San Francisco, CA, Scott Ballenger, Nathaniel Vitan, Amanda Biles, Jeffrey Manns, Roy Hofer, Meredith Martin, Addy Brinks, Hofer Gilson Lione, Chicago, IL, W. Keker, Lemley, Keker Van Nest respondent Genentech, Inc. Joseph Lipner, Laura Brill, Jason Linder, Alana Hoffman, Irell Manella Los Angeles, Robert Stone, Gregory D. Schetina, Duarte, Smith, Hohengarten, Ian Heath Gershengorn, Wilkens, Jenner Block City Hope. Justice SCALIA delivered opinion Court. We must decide whether Article III's limitation federal courts' jurisdiction to "Cases" and "Controversies," reflected in "actual controversy" requirement Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201(a), requires a patent licensee, terminate or be breach its license agreement before it can seek declaratory judgment that underlying is invalid, unenforceable, not infringed. I Because declaratory-judgment claims this case were disposed at motion-to-dismiss stage, we take following facts from allegations petitioner's amended complaint unopposed declarations petitioner submitted response motion dismiss. Petitioner MedImmune, Inc., manufactures Synagis, drug used prevent respiratory tract disease infants young children. In 1997, entered into with *768 (which acted on behalf itself assignee coassignee, Hope). The covered an existing relating production "chimeric antibodies" then-pending application "the coexpression immunoglobulin chains recombinant host cells." agreed pay royalties sales "Licensed Products," respondents granted right make, use, sell them. defined Products" specified antibody, manufacture, use sale which ... would, if licensed under th[e] Agreement, infringe one more either both [the patents,] have neither expired nor been held invalid court other body competent no appeal has may taken." App. 399. gave upon six months' written notice. December 2001, "coexpression" 1997 matured "Cabilly II" patent. Soon thereafter, Genentech letter expressing belief Synagis was Cabilly II expectation would beginning March 1, 2002. did think owing, believing unenforceable,[1] any event infringed Synagis. Nevertheless, considered clear threat enforce patent, agreement, sue infringement make royalty payments demanded. If prevail action, could ordered treble damages attorney's fees, enjoined selling product accounted than 80 percent revenue since 1999. Unwilling risk such serious consequences, paid demanded "under protest reservation all [its] rights." Id., 426. This action followed. sought relief discussed detail Part below. also requested injunction respect state relevant here. District respondents' dismiss lack subject-matter jurisdiction, relying decision Appeals Federal Circuit Gen-Probe Vysis, 359 F.3d 1376 (2004). had licensee good standing cannot establish III controversy regard validity, enforceability, scope because "obliterated reasonable apprehension" will sued infringement. 1381. affirmed Gen-Probe. 427 958 (2005). certiorari. 546 1169, 126 1329, 164 L. Ed. 2d 46 (2006). At outset, address disagreement concerning nature dispute issue herewhether involves only freestanding claim invalidity rather that, *769 noninfringement, are owing agreement.[2] That probably makes difference ultimate but well about us. Respondents contend "is seeking interpretation present contractual obligations." Brief Respondent 37; see Hope 48-49. They two reasons: (1) there infringes thereby making payable; (2) while over contract calls infringing valid. See 7, 37. first point simply does comport complaint. very count "DECLARATORY JUDGMENT ON CONTRACTUAL RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS," stated "disputes obligation License Agreement [petitioner's] Synagis® valid [Cabilly II] Patent." 136. These contentions repeated throughout 104, 105, 108, 147.[3] And phrase "does claim" (emphasis added) thought challenge patent's elsewhere states unmistakable clarity ® [petitioner] owes agreements [respondents]." 104.[4] As second point, assuredly 136, 147. Nor contention frivolous. True, until body, not. But Lear, Adkins, 395 653, 673, 89 1902, 23 610 (1969), similarly provided "royalties time `patent invalid,'" rejected argument repudiating comply vindicated court. express nonrepudiating *770 relieved during successful validitythat is, applicability estoppel these circumstances. Cf. Studiengesellschaft Kohle, m.b.H. Shell Oil Co., 112 1561, 1568 (C.A.Fed.1997) ("[A] licensee... invoke protection Lear doctrine (i) actually ceases payment royalties, (ii) provides notice licensor reason ceasing deemed invalid"). All need determine alleged dispute. It done so. further argue waived failing 10-11; Tr. Oral Arg. 30-31. record reveals, however, raised Circuit. Plaintiff-Appellant Nos. 04-1300, 04-1384 (CA Fed.), p. 38 ("Here, MedImmune define rights obligations Genentechprecisely type Act contemplates"). limited few pages appellate brief suggest waiver; merely reflects counsel's sound assessment futile. Circuit's precedent precluded claims, panel below authority overrule Gen-Probe.[5] Having determined preserved claim,[6] turn jurisdictional question. "[i]n actual within declare legal relations interested party declaration, sought." *771 2201(a). There when harbored doubts compatibility actions case-or-controversy requirement. Willing Chicago Auditorium Assn., 277 274, 289, 48 507, 72 880 (1928); Liberty Warehouse Co. Grannis, 273 70, 47 282, 71 541 (1927); Gordon States, 117 Appx. 697, 702 (1864) (the last Taney, J., published posthumously) ("The award execution essential part every passed exercising judicial power"). dispelled those doubts, Nashville, St. L.R. Wallace, 288 249, 53 345, 77 730 (1933), holding (in involving rendered court) appropriate III. signed law year, upheld constitutionality Aetna Life Ins. Haworth, 300 227, 57 461, 81 617 (1937). Our explained "case refers "Controversies" justiciable 240, 461. cases do draw brightest lines between satisfy decisions required "definite concrete, touching parties having adverse interests"; "real substantial" "admi[t] specific through decree conclusive character, distinguished advising what hypothetical facts." 240-241, Maryland Casualty Pacific Coal 312 270, 273, 61 510, 85 826 (1941), summarized follows: "Basically, question each alleged, circumstances, show substantial controversy, interests, sufficient immediacy reality warrant issuance judgment."[7] standards satisfied taken final step refusing *772 agreement. licensing asserts infringed; alleges (without contradiction) enjoin forthcoming. factual dimensions and, continuing payments, nothing render unfit resolution. Assuming deciding) here anticipatory repudiate license, continuation otherwise imminent least remote, nonexistent. long made, sales. Petitioner's own acts, words, eliminate harm.[8] us causes longer meaning analysis begin recognition where threatened government concerned, require plaintiff expose himself liability bringing suit basis threatfor example, enforced. plaintiffs (or inaction) violate eliminates prosecution, nonetheless jurisdiction. For Terrace Thompson, 263 197, 44 15, 68 255 (1923), State forfeiture his farm, fines, penalties he lease alien violation State's anti-alien land law. Given genuine enforcement, require, prerequisite testing validity injunction, bet so speak, taking violative action. 216, 15. also, e.g., Village Euclid Ambler Realty 272 365, 114, 303 (1926); Ex parte Young, 209 123, 441, 52 714 (1908). Likewise, Steffel 415 452, 94 1209, 39 505 (1974), proceed distribute handbills prosecution regarding statute prohibiting distribution. 458-160, 1209. then-Justice Rehnquist put concurrence, procedure alternative pursuit arguably illegal activity." 480, cases, eliminated harm doing claimed (enter lease, shopping center). preclude threat-eliminating behavior effectively coerced. Terrace, supra, 215-216, *773 15; Steffel, 459, dilemma posed coercionputting challenger choice abandoning risking prosecutionis "a purpose ameliorate." Abbott Laboratories Gardner, 387 152, 87 1507, 18 681 (1967). jurisprudence rare situations self-avoidance injury coerced enforcement private government. Lower courts, however (and courts interpreting acts requiring controversy"), accepted cases. See, Keener Gas Consolidated Util. Corp., 190 F.2d 985, 989 (C.A.10 1951); American Machine Metals, De Bothezat Impeller 166 535 (C.A.2 1948); Hess Country Club Park, 213 Cal. 613, 614, 2 P.2d 782, 783 (1931); Washington-Detroit Theater Moore, 249 Mich. 675, 229 N.W. 618, 618-619 (1930); Advisory Committee's Note Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 57, App., 790.[9] fortuitously, close Altvater Freeman, 319 359, 63 1115, 1450 (1943), licensee's failure cease nonjusticiable litigation, several patentees their licensees territorial restrictions license. filed counterclaim patents meantime paying protest" obtained earlier case. argued "so [licensees] continue academic, real parties." 364, 1115. presented controversy: "The fact being 'difference abstract character.'" Ibid, (quoting Aetna, U.S., 461). "were compulsion decree," "[u]nless modified, course [of action] defy it, suits." concluded requirements [a] met involuntary coercive exaction preserves recover sums legality claim." Ibid.[10] *774 ground involved injunction. readily dismissed. Never mind privately ultimately control patentees, who permit modification. More fundamentally, contrary conclusion, say coercion dispositive governmental, suggested just opposite. acknowledged option stopping defiance consequence [and] suits" patentees. significantly mention contempt, sort governmental sanction. Moreover, cited approvingly treatise said business employment" forms restitution common law; "[t]o imperil man's livelihood, enterprises, solvency, [was] ordinarily quite coercive" as, "detaining property." F. Woodward, Law Quasi Contracts 218 (1913), Altvater, 1115.[11] *775 Jurisdiction contradicted Assn, 880. lessee wanted demolish antiquated auditorium replace modern commercial building. believed without lessors' consent, unwilling drop wrecking ball test later. act applicable law, remove "cloud" lease. arisen "[n]o defendant ha[d] wronged so." 288, 290, 507. true colessors disagreed lessee's happened "informal, friendly, conversation," id., 286, year lawsuit filed; never even bothered approach colessors. went remark "[w]hat seeks judgment," grant beyond power conferred judiciary." Had decided after enactment our upholding) lively one, confident different result obtained. rule destroy large building, (as here) loss declaration actively contested finds support III.[12] assert effect settled they When enters contend, essentially purchases insurance policy, immunizing suits *776 continues patents. Permitting terminating breaking alters deal, allowing enjoying immunity suit, elimination patentee's quid pro quo. Of valid, force call claim, seems mistaken. To with, prohibition against challenging found. hardly implied mere promise "which taken," Promising amount invalidity. common-law same reap benefits, citing Commodity Credit Corp. Rosenberg Bros. 243 504, 512 (C.A.9 1957), Kingman Stoddard, 740, 745 (C.A.7 1898). suspend agreements, already repudiated contract. Even Lear's repudiation (a which, earlier, opine), hard how impugning benefits. Rather, asserting contract, properly interpreted, patents, cover products invalid. correct precludes win meritsnot disappears, somehow defeated. short, "insurance-policy" contention. Lastly, urge affirm dismissal discretionary grounds. "may party," 2201(a) added), text understood "to confer unique discretion deciding litigants." Wilton Seven Falls 515 277, 115 2137, 132 214 (1995); Cardinal Chemical Morton Int'l, 508 83, 95, n. 17, 113 1967, 124 1 (1993); Brillhart Excess America, 316 491, 494-496, 62 1173, 86 1620 (1942). found "more consistent statute," vest district instance, bearing usefulness remedy, fitness resolution, peculiarly grasp." Wilton, 2137. consideration dismissal, since, despite "serious misgivings" rule, *777 bound Pet. Cert. 31a. Discretionary irrelevant reason. exchanging competing accusations inequitable conduct 42-44; Reply Under imprudent should, must, decline relief. equitable, prudential, policy arguments favor lower remand. Similarly available remand merits-based denial * hold required, insofar break erred affirming reversed, cause remanded proceedings opinion. ordered. THOMAS, dissenting. certiorari prior pursuant 2201. answer yes. consistently obtain rulings matters remain conjectural. advanced addressed future controversy. precisely purpose, therefore Appeals' MedImmune's claim. reaches opposite extending obligations. respectfully dissent. Constitution limits adjudication "Controversies." 2. extends controversies constitutional sense." context actions, Court's uniform framework assessing exists. sense, "Controversy" "distinguished character; academic moot." (citing Alaska S.S. 253 113, 116, 40 448, 64 808 (1920)). definite interests." Finally, "[i]t ..., 241, *778 not) alter definition relax command exist adjudicate 272-273, (1941). Thus, operation procedural only." Ins., applied principle company brought insured become disabled, formally refused payments. 242, entertain insurer's specifically noted traditional first, "there ...." 243, Accordingly, tool allowed bring exists attempts premature ruling potential defenses typically adjudicated later Coffman Breeze Corps., 323 316, 65 298, 264 (1945), owner Royalty Adjustment 1942 declared unconstitutional accrued Government. existed arise defense holder royalties. 323-324, 298. "but request advisory recovery royalties." 324, "[t]he made medium securing arisen." Ibid.; Calderon Ashmus, 523 747, 1694, 140 970 (1998) (holding prisoner might raise habeas proceeding). principles apply equal context. 365-366, unremarkably, "licensee" affirmative suit. mistaken, expressly case." 363, So too, 86, (1993), Although finding noninfringement moot alleging invalidity, 102-103, reiterated trial court, course, *779 burden establishing existence controversy," 1967. Against foregoing background, A threshold matter, disagree characterization including "contractual dispute." Ante, 779. substantiate characterization, points three-paragraph entitled "`DECLARATORY OBLIGATIONS'" broad "`its Patent.'" Nowhere why "sale[s] d[o] 136.[1] specificity complaint, surprising explains supposed about. fair reading review litigation thus far) shows "contract count" posits unenforceable counts III), admits, [MedImmune] ." 779 original). assuming cognizable hinges entirely determination independent such, repackages Probably reason, pursued level litigation. subject "covered issue," 349-350, challenged characterization. sole some apprehension 958, 965 petition certiorari, alteration, says Neither opening allege oral argument, amicus, 21-22. "rais[e] preserv[e] 780. reaching identification "probably ultimate" outcome 778. true, holding. *780 B necessary voluntarily entering abiding removed ante, 772 (stating "remote, nonexistent"). deprived MedImmune. Additionally, Genentech. Patent infringement, 35 §§ 282(2)-(3). Therefore, here, something 461 ("[T]he only"). prayer reasonably wants know whether, decides sues defense. Presumably, favorable determination, then stop knowing advance stand behind decision. Yet demonstrated above, allow give success accrued. Calderon, 1694 (dismissing "attempt[ed] gain advantage obtaining defense"); Coffman, 298 (rejecting "medium arisen"). asked "an 461; Public Serv. Comm'n Utah Wycoff 344 237, 244, 73 236, 97 291 (1952) nebulous contingent fixed shape ..."). cannot, III, provide plainly presents exactly Based precedent, reach today's result, misreads expands concept 505, parties. *781 inappropriately relies inapplicable three reasons. First, arose 360, Second, proceeds understanding existed. Both terminated filing 1115 ("Royalties paid. decree"). Third, related, though one-time continued Ibid. case, considering "involuntary preserve[d] inapt stressed: "[T]he us, therefore[,] concern[s] intermediate courtnot .... controversy." offer showed patentee action." However, competitor (not licensee) allegedly faced growing liability. so, hypothesized situation paralleled Ins.: infringer moment, offered method court.[2] error extension No ever view Steffel. certain party's qualified power, "it *782 arrest deters exercise 1209 added). Limited, particularly today, theory obligations; indeed, so.[3] majority involve coercion, Steffel's rationale. "coercion" term absence choice, protected activity (here, Synagis) face lawsuit. choice. Here, By voluntary enter avoid coerced, goes far "coercive right... 773 (internal quotation marks omitted). "exaction"? sufficiently given free pass around reasoning applies suits. Indeed, contains limiting whatsoever, casting aside Stewart's "be exceedingly rare." 476, (concurring opinion). reasons, NOTES [1] Hereinafter, unenforceability referred similar abbreviation positive (validity enforceability) adjectival (valid enforceable unenforceable) forms. [2] dissent contends Post, (opinion J.). otherwise. "license agreement" "not infringed." (i). [3] addition agreeing (despite complaint) post, 779, evidently thinks weak. That, merits it. "lack complaint," matter. [4] observes assumed "`covered issue.'" 349-350). quoted statement separate granting summary antitrust claims. purposes ruling, irrelevant, accepting point. tells nothing, [5] obviously agree. Court: are, motion, identical Like Gen-Probe, Med-Immune that: (a) patent; (b) invalid; (c) unenforceable; (d) patent." A2829 (record citations [6] argument. demonstrably false. 8 Synagis®, due license"); 12 (Summary Argument: "[The purpose] contracting resolve disputes economic destruction multiplying damages.... [below] disrupt licenses contracts economy, undoing achievement reformers 1934"); 15 ("We're saying dispute"); 16 Act] resolved breach"); record. It's page 136 joint appendix. don't needs it"). "hinges validity," "`the body,'" quoting 769-770. sun, practice [7] asserts, 777, preceding discussion shows, dissent's means "premature," phrasing begs question: actual, ripe 778, none it). There, Government 1942, attack Act. asserted indication cites 749, (1998), holds litigant piecemeal finally conclusively [8] justiciability problem arises, preventing complained-of occurring, described terms (whether "imminent" "`fairly trace[able] defendant,'" Lujan Defenders Wildlife, 504 555, 560, 2130, 119 351 (1992)), ripeness "hardship [in] withholding consideration" 149, (1967)). acknowledge, boil down 24; [9] "rely inherent payments." 3. true; relied (to matter puts it) complying fails explain magically different. view, compliance obligation, consequences [10] incorrectly wildly out twice, emphasis) Altvater's "`[t]o case.'" 780 1115). passage plucked, distinguishing Electrical Fittings Thomas Betts 307 59 860, 83 1263 (1939), light Here full quotation: [in Fittings] adjudged although dismissed bill prove immaterial disposition winning reformation decree. counterclaim. Though non-infringement disposes answer, dispose raises validity." (footnote clear, snippet threatened. noninfringed acknowledges central lesson 781that "coercive" circumstances jurisdictionit limit rationale particular Altvater. "unique facts," 781, suggests Other conclusory assertion "voluntarily made," fall [11] "injunction" still contradict "reasonable suit" (or, evolved form, test, Teva Pharm. USA, Pfizer, 1324, 1333 (2005)). pays fear fatal business. reasonable-apprehension-of-suit conflicts collision-victim plaintiff-insurer insured; 239, (1937), insurer file tension 98, affirmance eliminating [12] objects "extension [v. Thompson ] 781. criticism misdirected respects. rely today originate 772-773, opportunity extend 773. Steffel" identifies principled appropriate. litigants latter perhaps easier category difficult issues federalism comity wrestled 460-475, accuses misapplying 782. facing argues, made." uses word "voluntarily" loosely, justification thereof) plaintiff's "voluntary" refusal handbills. find bit modest misdemeanor trespass Only ignoring "contains whatsoever," addition, identify anywhere provision construed breach." Notes U.S.C.App., pp. 790-791. little propriety extent estoppel, ceased agreementa singularly inapposite 659-660, 1902. breach-of-contract Admitting "rare," 773, predating construe provisions breach. Those 1951).

Category: 8