ContractsProf Blog

Editor: Myanna Dellinger
University of South Dakota School of Law

Monday, April 28, 2008

No Punitive Damages in Genentech Case

GenentechheadquartersLast week, the California Supreme Court upheld a $300 million verdict on a breach of contract claim against the biotechnology company Genentech (HQ pictured) but struck the $200 million award of punitive damages, according to the San Francisco Chronicle.  The dispute relates to the discovery of a process for producing insulin made in the 1970s by two scientists working at the City of Hope National Medical Center, a cancer research center, City of Hope contracted with Genentech to patent and market products derived from the process in return for a 2 percent royalty.  Genentech paid City of Hope more than $300 million in royalties relating to the product the two scientists had synthesized but did not pay royalties relating to other products that were created using the engineering process that the two scientists had created. 

The jury had awarded punitive damages based on a finding that Genentech had breached a fiducity duty to City of Hope.  The Supreme Court refused to permit plaintiffs to get around the limitation on contractual damages by characterizing a breach of contract claim as one alleging a fiduciary breach.  Summarizing the opinion, the Chronicle reports:

The court said a company that markets another firm's scientific discoveries in exchange for royalties has no special obligation to protect the other's interests, apart from its duty to adhere to the contract. Without any such obligation, the justices said, punitive damages cannot be awarded for a breach of contract.

And there was much rejoicing among the amici.

[Jeremy Telman]

In the News, Recent Scholarship | Permalink

TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference No Punitive Damages in Genentech Case:


It is interesting that the court did not mention its earlier insurance cases. I would think that if there are no punitive damages for breach of contract, and since there can be no bad faith without a breach of contract, there should be no punitive damages allowed in insurance bad faith cases.

Of course, I understand, the courts think insurance is something different but they should recognize that it is only a contract and the only appropriate damages for breach of a contract -- where there is no fiduciary relationship -- is contract damages.

Posted by: Barry Zalma | Apr 28, 2008 1:30:15 PM

Post a comment

If you do not complete your comment within 15 minutes, it will be lost. For longer comments, you may want to draft them in Word or another program and then copy them into this comment box.