Case Citator › Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, and the Regents of the University of California

Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, and the Regents of the University of California

Is it still good law? What later courts have actually done to this case.

Abrogated
Court
Federal Circuit
Citation
998 F.2d 931
Decided
Confirmed treatments
2
Flagged citations read
67 of 67
Citing cases (total)
67
Treatment dates
1995–1998
Abrogated
A reviewed court treats this case as abrogated by later authority. Genentech v. Eli Lilly was abrogated in part: all 67 flagged citations have been read, and the two confirmed treatments are listed below. The Supreme Court rejected de novo review for a declaratory suit involving parallel state-law proceedings.
More on how this was screened

The Federal Circuit later held that Genentech's Patent Remedy Act ruling could no longer rest on Congress's Article I power after Seminole Tribe. The Supreme Court subsequently held that the Act could not validly abrogate state immunity in Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. College Savings Bank, 527 U.S. 627 (1999).

Every treatment on this page is written from the citing opinion itself, with a verbatim quote, never copied from a commercial citator. A citation flagged by our screen but not shown here was read and found not to weaken this case.

67 later cases cite Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, and the Regents of the University of California; 67 of those citations sat close to treatment language and were flagged for reading, and all of them have been read. Citations that did not sit near treatment language were not flagged and were not read one by one, so a court that weakened this case without using any of that language would not appear here.

Relying on Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, and the Regents of the University of California?

This page shows what later courts did to it. Ask about your specific facts and see whether it still carries your argument, with citations you can check.

Treatments

Abrogated

  • For a declaratory suit involving parallel state-law proceedings, the Supreme Court rejected Genentech's de novo review approach while leaving federal-law cases unresolved.

    Wilton v. Seven Falls Co. · Supreme Court of the United States · filed

    London Underwriters urge us to follow those other Courts of Appeals that review decisions to grant (or to refrain from granting) declaratory relief de novo. See, e. g., Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 998 F. 2d, at 936; Cincinnati Ins. Co. v. Holbrook, 867 F. 2d, at 1333. We decline this invitation.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

  • The Federal Circuit held that its prior Patent Remedy Act ruling could no longer rest on Congress's Article I power after Seminole Tribe; it resolved the dispute on waiver without deciding whether another constitutional basis could support the Act.

    Genentech, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California · Federal Circuit · filed

    For the reasons we shall discuss, we conclude that in light of Seminole Tribe this court’s ruling in Genentech I can not stand on the ground on which it was premised, whereby the unchallenged constitutionality of Public Law 102-560, as based on Article I and Pennsylvania v. Union Gas, was interpreted as embracing all actions under Title 35 including declaratory actions.
    Read the full opinion on CourtListener →

Does this case still carry your argument?

Describe your facts. Ezel reads Genentech, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, and the Regents of the University of California and the cases that treated it, then tells you whether it still holds for your situation, with citations.

Opens in Ezel Pro.

  • Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
  • Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
  • Chat, drafting and research in one workspace