________________________

1 DNA Way, South San Francisco, California  94080-4990
(Address of principal executive offices and Zip Code)

(650) 225-1000
(Registrant's telephone number, including area code)

            Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days.  Yes [x]  No [ ]

            Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is an accelerated filer (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act).  Yes [x]  No [ ]

            Indicate the number of shares outstanding of each of the issuer's classes of common stock, as of the latest practicable date.

            In this report, "Genentech," "we," "us" and "our" refer to Genentech, Inc. "Common Stock" refers to Genentech's common stock, par value $0.02 per share and "Special Common Stock" refers to Genentech's callable putable common stock, par value $0.02 per share, all of which was redeemed by Roche Holdings, Inc. on June 30, 1999.

            We own or have rights to various copyrights, trademarks and trade names used in our business including the following: Activase® (alteplase, recombinant) tissue-plasminogen activator; Avastin™ (bevacizumab) anti-VEGF antibody; Cathflo® Activase® (alteplase for catheter clearance); Herceptin® (trastuzumab) anti-HER2 antibody; Lucentis™ (ranibizumab, rhuFab V2) anti-VEGF antibody fragment; Nutropin® (somatropin (rDNA origin) for injection) growth hormone; Nutropin AQ® and Nutropin AQ Pen™ (somatropin (rDNA origin) for injection) liquid formulation growth hormone; Nutropin Depot® (somatropin (rDNA origin) for injectable suspension) encapsulated sustained-release growth hormone; Protropin® (somatrem for injection) growth hormone; Pulmozyme® (dornase alfa, recombinant) inhalation solution; TNKase™ (tenecteplase) single-bolus thrombolytic agent; and Raptiva™ (efalizumab, formerly Xanelim™) anti-CD11a antibody. Rituxan® (rituximab) anti-CD20 antibody is a registered trademark of IDEC Pharmaceuticals Corporation; Tarceva™ (erlotinib) is a trademark of OSI Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; and Xolair® (omalizumab) anti-IgE antibody is a trademark of Novartis AG. This report also includes other trademarks, service marks and trade names of other companies.

Page 2

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

            In the opinion of management, the accompanying unaudited condensed consolidated financial statements have been prepared in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for interim financial information and with the instructions to Form 10-Q and Article 10 of Regulation S-X. Accordingly, they do not include all of the information and footnotes required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States for complete financial statements. In the opinion of management, all adjustments (consisting only of adjustments of a normal recurring nature) considered necessary for a fair presentation have been included. Operating results for the three- and six-month periods ended June 30, 2003 are not necessarily indicative of the results that may be expected for the year ending December 31, 2003. The Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheet as of December 31, 2002 has been derived from the audited consolidated financial statements as of that date. For further information, refer to the consolidated financial statements and notes thereto included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2002.

            The preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles in the United States (or U.S.) requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect the amounts reported in the financial statements and accompanying notes. Actual results could differ from those estimates.

            In November 2002, the Emerging Issues Task Force (or EITF) of the Financial Accounting Standards Board (or FASB) issued EITF 00-21, "Revenue Arrangements with Multiple Deliverables," which addresses certain aspects of the accounting for arrangements that involve the delivery or performance of multiple products, services and/or rights to use assets. Under EITF 00-21, revenue arrangements with multiple deliverables should be divided into separate units of accounting if the deliverables meet certain criteria, including whether the fair value of the delivered items can be determined and whether there is evidence of fair value of the undelivered items. In addition, the consideration should be allocated among the separate units of accounting based on their fair values, and the applicable revenue recognition criteria should be considered separately for each of the separate units of accounting. EITF 00-21 is effective for revenue arrangements we enter into after June 30, 2003. We are currently evaluating the impact of EITF 00-21 on revenue arrangements we enter into in the future, which will need to comply with EITF 00-21.

            In November 2002, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 45 (or FIN 45), "Guarantor's Accounting and Disclosure Requirements for Guarantees, Including Indirect Guarantees of Indebtedness of Others." FIN 45 elaborates on the existing disclosure requirements for most guarantees, including residual value guarantees issued in conjunction with operating lease agreements. It also clarifies that at the time a company issues a guarantee, the company must recognize an initial liability for the fair value of the obligation it assumes under that guarantee and must disclose that information in its interim and annual financial statements. The initial recognition and measurement provisions apply on a prospective basis to guarantees issued or modified after December 31, 2002. The disclosure requirements are effective for financial statements of interim or annual periods ending after December 15, 2002. Our adoption of FIN 45 did not have a material impact on our results of operations and financial position. See Note 2, "Leases and Contingencies," below for a discussion of our exposure related to our agreement with Serono S.A. and our synthetic leases and the related residual value guarantees.

Page 6

            In January 2003, the FASB issued Interpretation No. 46 (or FIN 46), "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities." FIN 46 requires a variable interest entity to be consolidated by a company if that company is subject to a majority of the risk of loss from the variable interest entity's activities or entitled to receive a majority of the entity's residual returns or both. A variable interest entity is a corporation, partnership, trust, or any other legal structure used for business purposes that either (a) does not have equity investors with voting rights or (b) has equity investors that do not provide sufficient financial resources for the entity to support its activities. A variable interest entity often holds financial assets, including loans or receivables, real estate or other property. A variable interest entity may be essentially passive or it may engage in research and development or other activities on behalf of another entity. The consolidation requirements of FIN 46 apply to variable interest entities created after January 31, 2003. The consolidation requirements apply to older entities in the first fiscal year or interim period beginning after June 15, 2003. Certain of the disclosure requirements apply to all financial statements issued after January 31, 2003, regardless of when the variable interest entity was established. See Note 2, "Leases and Contingencies," below for a discussion of our synthetic leases and the expanded disclosures required by FIN 46.

            In December 2002, the FASB issued Statement No. 148, "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation - Transition and Disclosure." FAS 148 amends FAS 123 "Accounting for Stock-Based Compensation" to provide alternative methods of transition for a voluntary change to the fair value based method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation. In addition, FAS 148 amends the disclosure requirements of FAS 123 to require more prominent disclosures in both annual and interim financial statements about the method of accounting for stock-based employee compensation and the effect of the method used on reported results. The additional disclosure requirements of FAS 148 are effective for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2002. We have elected to continue to follow the intrinsic value method of accounting as prescribed by Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25 (or APB 25), "Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees," to account for employee stock options. Under APB 25, no compensation expense is recognized unless the exercise price of our employee stock options is less than the market price of the underlying stock on the date of grant. We have not recorded such expense in the periods presented because we grant options at the fair market value of the underlying stock on the date of grant.

            We currently grant options under a stock option plan, which allows for the granting of non-qualified stock options, stock awards and stock appreciation rights to employees, directors and consultants of Genentech. Incentive stock options may only be granted to employees under this plan. Generally, non-qualified options have a maximum term of 10 years. Incentive options have a maximum term of 10 years. In general, options vest in increments over four years from the date of grant, although we may grant options with different vesting terms from time to time. No stock appreciation rights or incentive stock options have been granted under our current plan to date.

            We have an employee stock plan that allows eligible employees to purchase Common Stock at 85% of the lower of the fair market value of the Common Stock on the grant date or the fair market value on the first business day of each calendar quarter. Purchases are limited to 15% of each employee's eligible compensation. All full-time employees of Genentech are eligible to participate in this plan.

            The following information regarding net income (loss) and earnings (loss) per share has been determined as if we had accounted for our employee stock options and employee stock plan under the fair value method prescribed by FAS 123. The resulting effect on net income (loss) and earnings (loss) per share pursuant to FAS 123 is not likely to be representative of the effects in future periods, due to subsequent additional option grants and periods of vesting. The fair value of options was estimated at the date of grant using a Black-Scholes option valuation model with the following weighted-average assumptions:

Page 7

            The Black-Scholes option valuation model was developed for use in estimating the fair value of traded options, which have no vesting restrictions and are fully transferable. Option valuation models require the input of highly subjective assumptions including the expected stock price volatility. Because our employee stock options have characteristics significantly different from those of traded options and changes in the subjective input assumptions can materially affect the fair value estimate, in management's opinion, the existing models do not provide a reliable single measure of the fair value of our employee stock options.

            For purposes of disclosures pursuant to FAS 123 as amended by FAS 148, the estimated fair value of options is amortized to expense ratably over the options' vesting period.

            The following table illustrates the effect on reported net income (loss) and earnings (loss) per share as if we had applied the fair value recognition provisions of FAS 123 to stock-based employee compensation (in thousands, except per share amounts):

            We prepare estimates for discounts, rebates and sales returns and allowances based primarily on historical trends and experience and changes in customer financial conditions.

            In the three and six months ended June 30, 2003, we made certain classification changes in our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. A new caption titled "other income, net" was added to the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations (see below for the composition of this new caption). The "contract and other" caption presented in prior periods was changed to "contract revenues" and the gains from the sale of biotechnology equity securities that were previously included in "contract and other" are now reflected in "other income, net." In addition, write-downs on biotechnology equity securities previously included in "marketing, general and administrative" expenses are now also reflected in the "other income, net" caption.

            The following table summarizes the components of "other income, net" (in thousands):

Page 8

            As part of our strategic alliance efforts, we invest in debt and equity securities of certain biotechnology companies with which we have or have had collaborative agreements. "Other income, net" in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations includes realized gains and losses from the sale of certain of these biotechnology equity securities and write-downs for other-than-temporary declines in the fair value of certain of these biotechnology debt and equity securities. In addition, "other income, net," includes interest income and interest expense, net of amounts capitalized.

            Certain other reclassifications of prior year amounts have been made to our Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations and our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets to conform with the current year presentation.

            We lease various real properties under operating leases that generally require us to pay taxes, insurance, maintenance and minimum lease payments. Some of our leases have options to renew. Four of our operating leases are commonly referred to as synthetic leases. A synthetic lease represents a form of off-balance sheet financing under which an unrelated third-party funds 100% of the costs of the acquisition and/or construction of the property and leases the asset to a lessee (Genentech), and at least 3% of the third-party funds represent at-risk equity. As the lessee, our synthetic leases are treated as operating leases for accounting purposes and as financing leases for tax purposes. (See also below regarding FIN 46). Under our synthetic lease structures, upon termination or expiration, at our option, we must either purchase the property from the lessor at a predetermined amount that does not constitute a purchase at less than fair market value, sell the real property to a third-party, or renew the lease arrangement. If the property is sold to a third-party at an amount less than the amount financed by the lessor, we have agreed under residual value guarantees to pay the lessor up to an agreed upon percentage of the amount financed by the lessor.

            Three of our four synthetic leases were entered into with BNP Paribas Leasing Corporation (or BNP), who leases directly to us various buildings that we occupy in South San Francisco, California. Under certain of these leases, we are required to maintain cash collateral of $56.6 million, which we have included in our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets as restricted cash.

            The most significant of our synthetic leases relates to our manufacturing facility located in Vacaville, California. In November 2001, we completed a synthetic lease transaction for this facility, which had previously been leased to us under a predecessor synthetic lease. This new synthetic lease is structured differently from our other synthetic leases. As the lessee, we lease the property from an unrelated special purpose trust (owner/lessor) under an operating lease agreement for five years ending November 2006. Third-party financing is provided in the form of a 3% at-risk equity participation from investors and 97% debt commitment. Investors' equity contributions were equal to or greater than 3% of the fair value of the property at the lease's inception and are required to remain so for the term of the lease. A bankruptcy-remote, special purpose corporation (SPC) was formed to fund the debt portion through the issuance of commercial paper notes. The SPC lends the proceeds from the commercial paper to the owner/lessor, who issues promissory notes to the SPC. The SPC loans mature in November 2006. The SPC promissory notes are supported by a credit facility provided by financing institutions and draws are generally available under that credit facility to repay the SPC's commercial paper. The collateral for the SPC loans includes the leased property, and an interest in the residual value guarantee provided by us. As the lessee, at any time during the lease term, we have the option to purchase the property at an amount that does not constitute a purchase at less than fair market value. Our off-balance sheet contingent liability under the residual value guarantees is summarized in the table below.

            Under all the synthetic leases, Genentech, as the lessee, is also required to maintain certain pre-defined financial ratios and is limited to the amount of debt it can assume. In addition, no Genentech officer or employee has any financial interest with regard to these synthetic lease arrangements or with any of the special purpose entities used in these arrangements. In the event of a default, the maximum amount payable under the residual value guarantee would equal 100% of the amount financed by the lessor, and our obligation to purchase the leased

Page 9

properties or pay the related residual value guarantees could be accelerated. We believed at the inception of the leases and continue to believe that the occurrence of any event of default that could trigger our purchase obligation is remote.

            Future minimum lease payments under operating leases, exclusive of the residual value guarantees, executory costs and sublease income, at December 31, 2002, are as follows (in millions). These minimum lease payments were computed based on interest rates current at that time, which are subject to fluctuations in certain market-based interest rates:

            The following summarizes the approximate assumed carrying values of the leased properties as of December 31, 2002, which represents the initial fair values of the facilities at the inception of the related leases, less assumed depreciation through June 30, 2003, and residual value guarantee amounts for our synthetic leases (in millions):

            We believe that there have been no impairments in the fair value or use of the properties that we lease under synthetic leases wherein we believe that we would be required to pay amounts under any of the residual value guarantees. We will continue to assess the fair values of the underlying properties and the use of the properties for impairment at least annually.

            The maximum exposure to loss on our synthetic leases include (i) residual value guarantee payments as shown above, (ii) certain tax indemnifications in the event the third-parties are obligated for certain federal, state or local taxes as a result of their participation in the transaction, and (iii) indemnification for various losses, costs and expenses incurred by the third-party participants as a result of their ownership of the leased property or participation in the transaction, and as a result of the environmental condition of the property. The additional taxes, losses and expenses as described in (ii) and (iii) are contingent upon the existence of certain conditions and, therefore, would not be quantifiable at this time. However, we do not expect these additional taxes, losses and expenses to be material. In the case of Lease 1, we have pledged cash collateral of $56.6 million as a source of payment for Genentech's obligation for the residual value guarantee payments and other amounts we owe under the lease.

            Under FIN 46, synthetic leasing structures that qualify as variable interest entities are required to be consolidated by the primary beneficiary. We have determined that, the leasing structure used in the Vacaville Lease qualifies as a variable interest entity under FIN 46. Accordingly, with respect to our Vacaville Lease, we have determined that effective July 1, 2003, we will need to consolidate assets of approximately $359.0 million, net of accumulated depreciation, liabilities of approximately $412.3 million and noncontrolling interests of approximately $12.7 million, and we expect to record a charge of approximately $39.6 million, net of tax, as a cumulative effect of an accounting change on July 1, 2003. We are in the process of finalizing our assessment of the related fair values, which may vary from the actual fair values we record upon adoption. With regard to BNP Leases 1, 2 and 3, we have determined that these leases do not qualify as variable interest entities and accordingly, we will not be required to consolidate the related assets and liabilities under FIN 46 on July 1, 2003.

Page 10

            In August 2002, we entered into an agreement with Serono S.A. to market Raptiva internationally outside the United States, Japan, and certain other Asian countries. In February 2003, we amended the agreement with Serono to expand Serono's marketing rights to include certain additional Asian countries other than Japan. Development and marketing rights in the United States remain with us and our U.S. collaborator, XOMA (US) LLC, and we retain exclusive marketing rights in Japan. Under the agreement, we and Serono may collaborate on co-developing additional indications of Raptiva and will share certain global development costs. In addition, we have a supply agreement with Serono under which we could have a loss exposure up to a maximum of $10.0 million.

            We are a party to various legal proceedings, including patent infringement litigation relating to our antibody products, and licensing and contract disputes, and other matters.

            We and the City of Hope Medical Center are parties to a 1976 agreement relating to work conducted by two City of Hope employees, Arthur Riggs and Keiichi Itakura, and patents that resulted from that work, which are referred to as the "Riggs/Itakura Patents." Since that time, Genentech has entered into license agreements with various companies to make, use and sell the products covered by the Riggs/Itakura Patents. On August 13, 1999, the City of Hope filed a complaint against us in the Superior Court in Los Angeles County, California, alleging that we owe royalties to the City of Hope in connection with these license agreements, as well as product license agreements that involve the grant of licenses under the Riggs/Itakura Patents. The first trial of this suit began on August 28, 2001. On October 24, 2001, the jury hearing the lawsuit announced that it was unable to reach a verdict and on that basis the Court declared a mistrial. City of Hope requested a retrial, and the retrial began on March 20, 2002. On June 10, 2002, the jury voted to award the City of Hope approximately $300 million in compensatory damages. On June 24, 2002, the jury voted to award the City of Hope an additional $200 million in punitive damages. Such amounts were accrued as an expense in the second quarter of 2002 and were included in litigation-related liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at June 30, 2003 and December 31, 2002. Genentech filed a notice of appeal of the verdict and damages awards with the California Court of Appeal. The appeal process is ongoing. The amount of cash paid, if any, in connection with the City of Hope matter will depend on the outcome of the appeal.

            On June 7, 2000, Chiron Corporation filed a patent infringement suit against us in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of California (Sacramento), alleging that the manufacture, use, sale and offer for sale of our Herceptin antibody product infringes Chiron's U.S. Patent No. 6,054,561. This patent was granted on April 25, 2000, and will expire on June 28, 2005, and it relates to certain antibodies that bind to breast cancer cells and/or other cells. Chiron is seeking compensatory damages for the alleged infringement, additional damages (e.g., for willful infringement), and attorneys' fees and costs. On April 22, 2002, the Court issued its decision ("Markman Order") construing certain aspects of the patent claims that are in dispute. On June 25, 2002, the Court issued several decisions regarding summary judgment motions that previously had been filed by Chiron and us. In those decisions, the Court ruled as a matter of law that Herceptin infringes claims 1 to 25 of Chiron's patent, and also ruled as a matter of law in favor of Chiron on some but not all of Genentech's defenses and counterclaims regarding the alleged invalidity and/or unenforceability of the patent. The trial of this suit began on August 6, 2002. Following the first phase of the trial, which related to Genentech's remaining defenses and counterclaims regarding the alleged invalidity of the patent, the jury unanimously found that claims 1 to 25 of Chiron's patent were invalid, and on that basis the Court entered judgment in favor of Genentech. Chiron filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and Genentech filed a notice of cross-appeal. The appeal process is ongoing.

            On August 12, 2002, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (or Patent Office) declared an interference between the Chiron patent involved in the above mentioned lawsuit (U.S. Patent No. 6,054,561) and a patent application exclusively licensed by Genentech from a university relating to anti-HER2 antibodies. An interference proceeding is declared to decide whom first made a particular invention where two or more parties claim the same invention, whether the parties' claims are patentable, and consequently who is or is not entitled to a patent on the invention. In declaring this interference, the Patent Office has determined that there is a substantial question as to whether the inventors of the Chiron patent were first to invent and are entitled to this patent. If the Patent Office were to decide that the inventors of the university's patent application were first to invent and that their claims are patentable, a new patent would be issued to the university and the Chiron patent would be revoked. On October 24,

Page 11

2002, the Patent Office redeclared the interference to include, in addition to the above-referenced Chiron patent and university patent application, a number of patents and patent applications owned by either Chiron or Genentech, including Chiron's U.S. Patent No. 4,753,894 that is also at issue in the separate patent infringement lawsuit described below. The interference proceeding is ongoing.

            On March 13, 2001, Chiron filed another patent infringement lawsuit against us in the U.S. District Court in the Eastern District of California, alleging that the manufacture, use, sale and/or offer for sale of our Herceptin antibody product infringes Chiron's U.S. Patent No. 4,753,894. Chiron is seeking compensatory damages for the alleged infringement, additional damages, and attorneys' fees and costs. Genentech filed a motion to dismiss this second lawsuit, which was denied. On November 1, 2002, the parties filed a proposed stipulation to stay all proceedings in this lawsuit until (1) the interference involving U.S. Patent No. 4,753,894 is resolved or (2) two years from entry of the proposed stipulation, whichever is sooner. On or about November 13, 2002, the Court entered the stipulation, staying the proceedings as requested by the parties. This lawsuit is separate from and in addition to the Chiron suit mentioned above.

            On July 24, 2002, Green Equity, LLC filed a shareholder derivative lawsuit in the San Francisco Superior Court against Genentech as nominal defendant and against several members of our Board of Directors, and by subsequent amendment of the lawsuit, against several current and former Genentech officers and employees (the "individual defendants"). The lawsuit is based upon the claims made by the City of Hope in the contract dispute referred to above. The complaint alleges that the individual defendants breached the fiduciary duty they owe to Genentech by causing us to withhold royalty payments allegedly due to the City of Hope and to conceal third-party licenses that allegedly should have been disclosed to the City of Hope. The plaintiff seeks unspecified damages, costs, and attorneys' fees. The case was removed to the U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California (San Francisco). Defendants filed motions to dismiss the lawsuit, and on March 6, 2003, the Court issued an order granting in part and denying in part the motions to dismiss. The Court dismissed the Complaint against Genentech and all the individual defendants, except for Jonathan K.C. Knowles. The Court dismissed the Complaint against Knowles with leave to amend. On April 7, 2003, Green Equity, LLC and an additional plaintiff, Warren Jones, filed another amended Complaint against Genentech as nominal defendant and against Dr. Knowles and several other members of our Board of Directors. Defendants again filed motions to dismiss. On June 20, 2003, the Court granted the defendants' motions in their entirety and the entire action was dismissed on the merits against all defendants.

            We and Tanox Biosystems, Inc. (or Tanox) are parties to a July 1996 Settlement and Cross-Licensing Agreement relating to the development and manufacture of certain antibody products directed towards immunoglobin E, including Xolair and Hu-901. On February 20, 2002, Tanox filed an amended demand in an ongoing arbitration proceeding between Genentech and Tanox that is being conducted by the American Arbitration Association in San Francisco. In its amended demand, Tanox has claimed breach of the July 1996 Agreement, conversion, tortious interference, unjust enrichment, and unfair competition by Genentech, and requests injunctive relief as well as monetary damages "many times in excess of $100,000,000." On March 14, 2002, Genentech denied all of Tanox's claims, and counterclaimed for breach of contract, theft of trade secrets, misappropriation, breach of confidence, interference with contract, and interference with economic expectancies by Tanox. Genentech requested injunctive relief and monetary damages. On October 16, 2002, Tanox announced that in a dispute between it and Novartis, an arbitration panel ruled that Tanox is not entitled to develop independently the Hu-901 antibody product. The Novartis/Tanox panel also ruled that Tanox is entitled to receive certain know-how from Novartis. Tanox contends in its dispute against Genentech that it is entitled to similar information from Genentech. The effect of the October 16 ruling from the Novartis/Tanox arbitration, if any, on Tanox's claims against Genentech cannot be determined since it has not yet been resolved by the arbitrators in the Tanox/Genentech proceedings. As a general matter, the claims are divided into two categories: (1) compensation for lost rights under agreements with Genentech and Novartis, and (2) additional royalties on future sales. The arbitration began on January 13, 2003 and is ongoing. Tanox closed its case on January 30, 2003 and Genentech closed its case on March 30, 2003. A decision in the arbitration has been delayed and is expected no earlier than July 31, 2003. The outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.

            On April 11, 2003, MedImmune, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Genentech, City of Hope National Medical Center, and Celltech R & D Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Los Angeles). The lawsuit relates to U.S. Patent No. 6,331,415 ("the '415 patent") that is co-owned by Genentech and City of Hope and

Page 12

under which MedImmune and other companies have been licensed and are paying royalties to Genentech. The lawsuit includes claims for violation of antitrust, patent, and unfair competition laws. MedImmune is seeking to have the '415 patent declared invalid and/or unenforceable, a determination that MedImmune does not owe royalties under the '415 patent on sales of its Synagis® antibody product, an injunction to prevent Genentech from enforcing the '415 patent, an award of actual and exemplary damages, and other relief. Genentech intends to vigorously defend itself against all of the allegations and claims in this lawsuit. An estimate of any potential loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

           We recorded $13.4 million in the second quarter and $26.6 million in the first six months of 2003, for accrued interest and bond costs related to the City of Hope (or COH) trial judgment. In the second quarter and first six months of 2002, we recognized $518.0 million of litigation-related special charges. These special charges were comprised of the COH trial judgment and certain other litigation-related matters in the second quarter of 2002. In conjunction with the COH trial judgment, in the third quarter of 2002 we posted a $600.0 million surety bond and as part of this arrangement, we were required to pledge $630.0 million in cash and investments to secure the bond. The $630.0 million cash and investments were classified as restricted cash on our Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at June 30, 2003 and December 31, 2002. In addition, we accrued $2.4 million in the first six months of 2003 of royalty expenses related to the COH trial judgment, which was reflected in marketing, general and administrative expenses. We expect that we will continue to incur interest charges on the judgment and service fees on the surety bond each quarter through the process of appealing the COH trial results. These special charges represent our best estimate of the costs for the current resolution of these matters and are included in litigation-related liabilities in the Condensed Consolidated Balance Sheets at June 30, 2003 and December 31, 2002. We developed this estimate in consultation with outside counsel handling our defense in these matters and it is based upon the facts and circumstances of these matters known to us at that time. The amount of our liability for certain of these matters could exceed or be less than the amount of our current estimate, depending on the outcome of these matters. The amount of cash paid, if any, in connection with the City of Hope matter will depend on the outcome of the appeal.

            On June 30, 1999, we redeemed all of our outstanding Special Common Stock held by stockholders other than Roche Holdings, Inc. (or Roche) with funds deposited by Roche for that purpose. This event, referred to as the "Redemption," caused Roche to own 100% of our common stock on that date. The Redemption was reflected as a purchase of a business which under U.S. generally accepted accounting principles, required push-down accounting to reflect in our financial statements the amount paid for our stock in excess of our net book value plus Roche's transaction costs at June 30, 1999. See Note 4, "Goodwill and Other Intangible Assets," for the amortization of our other intangible assets.

            In June 2003, Hoffmann-La Roche, an affiliate of Roche, exercised its option to license from us the rights to market Avastin for all countries outside of the U.S. under its existing licensing agreement with us. As part of its opt-in, Hoffmann-La Roche will pay us $188.0 million and will pay 75% of all subsequent global development costs related to Avastin. We will receive royalties on all net sales of Avastin in countries outside of the U.S.

            We expect from time to time to issue additional shares of common stock in connection with our stock option and stock purchase plans, and we may issue additional shares for other purposes. Our affiliation agreement with Roche provides, among other things, that we will establish a stock repurchase program designed to maintain Roche's percentage ownership interest in our common stock. The affiliation agreement provides that we will repurchase a sufficient number of shares pursuant to this program such that, with respect to any issuance of common stock by Genentech in the future, the percentage of Genentech common stock owned by Roche immediately after such issuance will be no lower than Roche's lowest percentage ownership of Genentech common stock at any time after the offering of common stock occurring in July 1999 and prior to the time of such issuance, except that Genentech

Page 13

may issue shares up to an amount that would cause Roche's lowest percentage ownership to be no more than 2% below the "Minimum Percentage." The Minimum Percentage equals the lowest number of shares of Genentech common stock owned by Roche since the July 1999 offering (to be adjusted in the future for dispositions of shares of Genentech common stock by Roche as well as for stock splits or stock combinations) divided by 509,194,352 (to be adjusted in the future for stock splits or stock combinations), which is the number of shares of Genentech common stock outstanding at the time of the July 1999 offering, as adjusted for the two-for-one splits of Genentech common stock in November 1999 and October 2000. As long as Roche's percentage ownership is greater than 50%, prior to issuing any shares, the affiliation agreement provides that we will repurchase a sufficient number of shares of our common stock such that, immediately after our issuance of shares, Roche's percentage ownership will be greater than 50%. The affiliation agreement also provides that, upon Roche's request, we will repurchase shares of our common stock to increase Roche's ownership to the Minimum Percentage. In addition, Roche will have a continuing option to buy stock from us at prevailing market prices to maintain its percentage ownership interest. On June 30, 2003, Roche's percentage ownership of our common stock was 59.2%.

            Goodwill represents the difference between the purchase price and the fair value of the net assets when accounted for by the purchase method of accounting arising from the Redemption (see above Note 3, "Relationship With Roche"). The carrying amount of goodwill at June 30, 2003 and December 31, 2002 was $1,334.2 million. We performed an impairment test of goodwill upon adoption of FAS 142 on January 1, 2002, and an impairment test on September 30, 2002, and found no impairment. We will continue to monitor the carrying value of our goodwill through impairment tests performed at least annually.

            The components of our acquisition-related intangible assets arising from the Redemption and push-down accounting (see above Note 3, "Relationship With Roche"), patents and other intangible assets at June 30, 2003 and December 31, 2002, are as follows (in millions):

            Amortization expense of our other intangible assets was $42.3  million in the second quarter and $85.3 million in the first six months of 2003, and $42.3 million in the second quarter and $84.7 million in the first six months of 2002.

            The expected future annual amortization expense of our other intangible assets is as follows (in millions):

Page 14

            We record gains and losses on derivatives related to our equity hedging instruments in "other income, net" in the Condensed Consolidated Statements of Operations. We had no such gains or losses in the second quarter and first six months of 2003 or in the comparable periods of 2002.

            At June 30, 2003, net losses on derivative instruments expected to be reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income to "other income, net" during the next twelve months are $3.3 million primarily due to the recognition of premiums related to maturing foreign currency exchange options.

            The following table summarizes activity in other comprehensive income (or OCI) related to derivatives, net of taxes, held during the second quarters and first six months of 2003 and 2002 (in thousands):

            Comprehensive income (loss) is comprised of net income (loss) and OCI. OCI includes certain changes in stockholders' equity that are excluded from net income (loss). OCI includes changes in fair value of derivatives designated as and effective as hedges and unrealized gains and losses on our available-for-sale securities. The following table summarizes the components of total comprehensive income, net of taxes, during the second quarters and first six months of 2003 and 2002 (in thousands):

            The components of accumulated other comprehensive income, net of taxes, are as follows (in thousands):

Page 15

            The following is a reconciliation of the denominator used in basic and diluted earnings (loss) per share (EPS) computations for the second quarters and first six months of 2003 and 2002 (in thousands):