________________________

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, "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. All information relating to the number of shares, price per share and per share amounts of common stock give effect to the May 2004 two-for-one split of our common stock.

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; Omnitarg™ (pertuzumab) HER dimerization inhibitor; Protropin® (somatrem for injection) growth hormone; Pulmozyme® (dornase alfa, recombinant) inhalation solution; Raptiva™ (efalizumab, formerly Xanelim™) anti-CD11a antibody; and TNKase™ (tenecte plase) single-bolus thrombolytic agent. Rituxan® (rituximab) anti-CD20 antibody is a registered trademark of Biogen Idec Inc.; Tarceva™ (erlotinib HC1) 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

We prepared the condensed consolidated financial statements following the requirements of the Securities and Exchange Commission (or SEC) for interim reporting. As permitted under those rules, certain footnotes or other financial information that are normally required by accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (or GAAP) can be condensed or omitted. In the opinion of management, the financial statements include all normal and recurring adjustments that are considered necessary for the fair presentation of our financial position and operating results. Certain reclassifications have been made to prior year amounts to conform with current period presentation.

Revenues, expenses, assets and liabilities can vary during each quarter of the year. Therefore, the results and trends in these interim financial statements may not be the same as those for the full year. The information included in this quarterly report on Form 10-Q should be read in conjunction with the consolidated financial statements and accompanying notes included in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

In February 2004, the Board approved a two-for-one stock split of our common stock in the form of a stock dividend of one share of Genentech common stock for each share held contingent on stockholder approval of an increase in our authorized common stock. On April 16, 2004, at our annual meeting of stockholders, our stockholders approved an increase in our authorized common stock. The record date for the stock split was April 28, 2004. Our stock began trading on a split-adjusted basis on May 13, 2004. All information in this report relating to the number of shares, price per share and per share amounts of common stock are presented on a post-split basis.

The condensed consolidated financial statements include the accounts of Genentech and all subsidiaries. Genentech also consolidates a variable interest entity for which Genentech is the primary beneficiary pursuant to Financial Accounting Standards Board (or FASB) Interpretation No. 46R (or FIN 46R), a revision to Interpretation 46, "Consolidation of Variable Interest Entities," an interpretation of Accounting Research Bulletin No. 51, and records the noncontrolling interest in the condensed consolidated balance sheet. Material intercompany accounts and transactions have been eliminated.

The preparation of financial statements in conformity with GAAP 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.

We have elected to continue to follow the intrinsic value method of accounting for stock-based compensation as prescribed by Accounting Principles Board Opinion No. 25 (or APB 25), "Accounting for Stock Issued to Employees." We apply the disclosure provisions of Statement of Financial Accounting Standards No. 123 (or FAS 123), "Accounting for Stock-based Compensation," as amended by FAS 148, "Accounting for Stock-based Compensation - Transition and Disclosure" (or FAS 148) as if the fair value-based method had been applied in measuring compensation expense. Under APB 25, we do not recognize compensation expense 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 grant all of our options at the fair market value of the underlying stock on the date of grant. Consequently, we have not recorded such expense in the periods presented.

Page 6

We currently grant options under a stock option plan that allows for the granting of non-qualified stock options, incentive stock options and stock purchase rights to employees, directors and consultants of Genentech. Incentive stock options may only be granted to employees under this plan. Generally, non-qualified options and incentive options have a maximum term of 10 years. In general, options vest in increments over four years from the date of grant. We have an employee stock plan that allows eligible employees to purchase common stock at 85% of the lower of the fair market value on the grant date or the fair market value on the purchase date. Purchases are limited to 15% of each employee's eligible compensation and subject to certain Internal Revenue Service restrictions. All full-time employees of Genentech are eligible to participate in this plan.

We had stock option exercises of 5.3 million shares in the second quarter and 16.6 million shares in the first six months of 2004.

The following information regarding net income and earnings 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 as amended by FAS 148. The resulting effect on net income and earnings 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:

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, thus these calculations may not accurately value such 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.

Page 7

The following table illustrates the effect on reported net income and earnings 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):

On March 31, 2004, the FASB issued an Exposure Draft (ED), "Share-Based Payment - An Amendment of FASB Statements No. 123 and 95." The proposed Statement addresses the accounting for transactions in which an enterprise receives employee services in exchange for (a) equity instruments of the enterprise or (b) liabilities that are based on the fair value of the enterprise's equity instruments or that may be settled by the issuance of such equity instruments. The proposed Statement would eliminate the ability to account for share-based compensation transactions using APB 25, and generally would require instead that such transactions be accounted for using a fair-value based method. As proposed, companies would be required to recognize an expense for compensation cost related to share-based payment arrangements including stock options and employee stock purchase plans. As proposed, the new rules would be applied on a modified prospective basis as defined in the ED, and would be effective f or public companies for fiscal years beginning after December 15, 2004. We are currently evaluating option valuation methodologies and assumptions in light of the evolving accounting standards related to employee stock options. Current estimates of option values using the Black-Scholes method (as shown above) may not be indicative of results from valuation methodologies ultimately adopted in the final rules.

Reclassifications

Certain reclassifications of prior year amounts have been made to our condensed consolidated statements of cash flows to conform to the current year presentation.

We lease various real properties under operating leases. Three of our operating leases are commonly referred to as "synthetic leases." Under FIN 46R, each lease is evaluated to determine if it qualifies as a variable interest entity (or VIE) and whether Genentech is the primary beneficiary under which it would be required to consolidate the VIE.

The most significant of our synthetic leases relates to our manufacturing facility located in Vacaville, California. Under FIN 46R, we determined that the entity from which we lease the Vacaville facility qualified as a VIE and that we are the primary beneficiary of this VIE as we absorb the majority of the entity's expected losses. Upon adoption of the provisions of FIN 46R on July 1, 2003, we consolidated the entity.

Page 8

Our two remaining 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 one 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 and other long-term assets. We have evaluated our accounting for these leases under the provisions of FIN 46R, and have determined the following:

• as of July 1, 2003 and for each quarterly reporting period through June 30, 2004, our two remaining synthetic leases entered into with BNP represent a variable interest in BNP;

• we are not the primary beneficiary of BNP as we do not absorb the majority of the entity's expected losses or expected residual returns. As part of this determination, we have received quarterly confirmations from BNP representing to us and we have reviewed their portfolio statements to confirm that the leased properties do not represent greater than 50% of the fair value of BNP's assets; and

• we believe that the leased properties are not "specified assets" that represent essentially the only source of payment for our variable interest. As part of this determination, we have received quarterly confirmations from BNP representing to us and we have reviewed their portfolio statements to confirm that the leased properties are not "specified assets" held within a silo. That is, BNP has not financed an amount equal to or greater than 95% of the fair value of the leased assets with non-recourse debt, lessor participation, targeted equity or any other type of funding (silo funding) that would result in the leased properties being the only source of payment. In addition, as part of BNP's representations and warranties, BNP has agreed not to incur additional indebtedness in the future or to change the character of other non-targeted equity or similar funding sources that in any way would result in the leased properties being essentially the only source of repayment or to make any distributions from BNP that would result in silo funding equal to or exceeding 95% of the fair value of the leased properties.

Accordingly, we are not required to consolidate either the leasing entity or the specific assets that we lease under the BNP leases.

Future minimum lease payments were computed based on December 31, 2003 market-based interest rates, which are subject to fluctuations. The minimum payments under all leases, exclusive of the residual value guarantees, executory costs and sublease income, at December 31, 2003, are as follows (in millions):

___________

The following summarizes the approximate initial fair values of the facilities at the inception of the related leases, lease terms and residual value guarantee amounts for each of our synthetic leases (in millions):

Page 9

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 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 includes (i) residual value guarantee payments as shown above, (ii) certain tax indemnification 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 South San Francisco 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 pa yments and other amounts we owe under the lease.

In August 2002, we entered into an agreement with Serono S.A., which, in addition to granting Serono marketing rights in specific areas of the world, includes an arrangement to potentially collaborate on co-developing additional indications of Raptiva and to share certain global development costs. We also have a supply agreement with Serono, under which we may 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 National Medical Center (or COH) are parties to a 1976 agreement relating to work conducted by two COH 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 COH filed a complaint against us in the Superior Court in Los Angeles County, California, alleging that we owe royalties to the COH 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. COH requested a retrial, and the retrial began on March 20, 200 2. On June 10, 2002, the jury voted to award the COH approximately $300 million in compensatory damages. On June 24, 2002, the jury voted to award the COH an additional $200 million in punitive damages. Such amounts were accrued as an expense in the second quarter of 2002 and were included in other long-term liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets at June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003. Genentech filed a notice of appeal of the verdict and damages awards with the California Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal has scheduled the hearing of that appeal for August 19, 2004. The appeal process is ongoing. The amount of cash paid, if any, in connection with the COH 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

Page 10

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 ("Court of Appeals"), and Genentech filed a notice of cross-appeal. On April 6, 2004, we announced that a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the 2002 judgment of the U.S. District Court that found in favor of Genentech that all claims of Chiron's patent asserted against Genentech are invalid. On or about April 15, 2004, Chiron filed a Petition for Rehearing with the Court of Appeals seeking further review and reconsideration of that Court's decision. The Court of Appeals denied the Petition in its entirety on June 8, 2004.

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 who 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 rev oked. On October 24, 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 and therefore the outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.

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 April 11, 2003, MedImmune, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Genentech, COH, 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 COH and 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. On January 14, 2004 (amending a December 23, 2003 Order), the U.S. Distr ict Court granted summary judgment in Genentech's favor on all of MedImmune's antitrust and unfair competition claims. MedImmune sought to amend its complaint to reallege certain claims for antitrust and unfair competition. On February 19, 2004, the Court denied this motion in its entirety and final judgment was entered in favor of Genentech and Celltech and against MedImmune on March 15, 2004 on all antitrust and unfair competition claims. MedImmune filed a notice of appeal of this judgment with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Concurrently, in the District Court litigation, Genentech filed a motion to dismiss all remaining claims in the case. On April 23, 2004, the District Court granted Genentech's motion and dismissed all remaining claims. Final judgment was entered in Genentech's favor on May 3, 2004, thus concluding proceedings in the District Court. MedImmune filed a notice of appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Because the appeal process is ongoing , the final outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.

Page 11

We recorded accrued interest and bond costs related to the COH trial judgment of $13.5 million and $13.4 million in the second quarters of 2004 and 2003, respectively, and $26.9 million and $26.6 million in the first six months of 2004 and 2003, respectively. In 2002, we recognized $543.9 million of litigation-related special charges, which included the COH trial judgment, including accrued interest and bond costs, and certain other litigation-related matters. In conjunction with the City of Hope judgment, we arranged to post a surety bond of $600.0 million. As part of this arrangement, we were required to pledge $630.0 million in cash and investments to secure the bond. In the second quarter of 2004, we were required to increase the surety bond to $650.0 million and pledged an additional $52.0 million, or a total of $682.0 million, in cash and investments to secure the bond at June 30, 2004. This amount is reflected in "restricted cash and other long-term assets" on the condensed con solidated balance sheets. In addition, we accrued royalty expenses related to the City of Hope judgment of $2.4 million in the first six months of 2003 and none in the first sixth months of 2004. This royalty expense is 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 City of Hope trial results. These special charges represent our estimate of the costs for the current resolution of these matters and are included in other long-term liabilities in the condensed consolidated balance sheets at June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003. We developed these estimates in consultation with outside counsel handling our defense in these matters using 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, if any, paid in connection with the City of Hope matter will depend on the outcome of the appeal.

We enter into transactions with our related parties, Roche Holdings, Inc. (including Hoffmann-La Roche and other affiliates) and Novartis, in the ordinary course of business. The accounting policies we apply to our transactions with our related parties are consistent with those applied in transactions with independent third-parties and all related party agreements are negotiated on an arm's-length basis.

On June 30, 1999, we redeemed all of our outstanding Special Common Stock held by stockholders other than 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 GAAP required us 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, "Other Intangible Assets," for the amortization of our other intangible assets.

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 may issue shares up to an amount that would cause Roche's lowest percentage ownership to be no more than 2% below t he "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 1,018,388,704 (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, October 2000 and May 2004. We repurchased shares of our common stock in 2004 and 2003 (see Note 9, "Stock Repurchases Program"). 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

Page 12

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. Roche publicly offered zero-coupon notes in January 2000 which were exchangeable for Genentech common stock held by Roche. Roche called these notes in March 2004. Through April 5, 2004, the expiration date for investors to tender these notes, a total of 25,999,324 shares were issued in exchange for the notes, thereby reducing Roche's ownership of Genentech common stock to 587,189,380 shares. At June 30, 2004, Roche's ownership percentage was 55.6%. The Minimum Percentage at June 30, 2004 was 57.7% and, under the terms of the affiliation agreement, Ro che's lowest ownership percentage is to be no lower than 55.7%. See Note 9 "Capital Stock" for information regarding our stock repurchase program.

In April 2004, we further amended our July 1999 licensing and marketing agreement with Hoffmann-La Roche and its affiliates under which we grant them an option to license, use and sell our products in non-U.S. markets. This amendment added certain Genentech products under Hoffman-La Roche's commercialization and marketing rights for Canada but did not modify any material financial terms of the licensing and marketing agreement which are described in our Annual Report on Form 10-K for the year ended December 31, 2003.

We have a July 1998 licensing and marketing agreement relating to anti-HER2 antibodies (Herceptin and more recently, Omnitarg) with Hoffmann-La Roche, providing them with exclusive marketing rights outside of the United States. Under the agreement, Hoffmann-La Roche contributes equally with us on global development costs. Either Genentech or Hoffmann-La Roche has the right to "opt-out" of developing an additional indication for a product and would not share the costs or benefits of the additional indication, but could "opt-back-in" before approval of the indication by paying twice what would have been owed for development of the indication if no opt-out had occurred. Hoffmann-La Roche has also agreed to make royalty payments of 20% on aggregate net product sales outside the United States up to $500 million in each calendar year and 22.5% on such sales in excess of $500 million in each calendar year.

In April 2004, we entered into a research collaboration agreement with Hoffmann-La Roche that outlines the process by which Hoffmann-La Roche and Genentech will conduct and share in the costs of joint research on molecules in areas of mutual interest. The agreement further outlines how development and commercialization efforts will be coordinated with respect to select molecules, including the financial provisions for a number of different development and commercialization scenarios undertaken by either or both parties.

In June 2003, Hoffmann-La Roche exercised its option to license from us the rights to market Avastin for all countries outside of the U.S. under the July 1999 licensing and marketing agreement. As part of its opt-in, Hoffmann-La Roche paid us approximately $188.0 million and pays 75% of subsequent global development costs related to the metastatic colorectal cancer indication of Avastin and all others unless Hoffmann-La Roche specifically opts out of the development of certain other indications.

In September 2003, Hoffmann-La Roche exercised its option to license from us the rights to market PRO70769, a humanized antibody that binds to CD20, for all countries outside of the U.S. (other than territory previously licensed to others) under the July 1999 licensing and marketing agreement. As part of its opt-in, Hoffmann-La Roche paid us $8.4 million and pays 50% of subsequent global development costs related to PRO70769 unless Hoffmann-La Roche opts out of the development of certain other indications. We will receive royalties on net sales of Avastin and PRO70769 in countries outside of the U.S.

We recognized contract revenue from Hoffmann-La Roche, including amounts earned related to ongoing development activities, of $23.7 million and $14.7 million in the second quarters of 2004 and 2003, respectively, and $49.6 million and $16.8 million in the first six months of 2004 and 2003, respectively. All other revenues from Roche, Hoffmann-La Roche and their affiliates, principally royalties and product sales, were $111.7 million and $93.4 million in the second quarters of 2004 and 2003, respectively, and $210.6 million and $169.6 million in the first six months of 2004 and 2003, respectively. Cost of sales included amounts related to Hoffmann-La Roche of

Page 13

$25.9 million and $30.0 million in the second quarters of 2004 and 2003, respectively, and $48.4 million and $54.8 million in the first six months of 2004 and 2003, respectively. Research and development (or R&D) expenses included amounts related to Hoffmann- La Roche of $30.5 million and $6.3 million in the second quarters of 2004 and 2003, respectively, and $67.3 million and $14.7 million in the first six months of 2004 and 2003, respectively.

We understand that Novartis holds approximately 33.3% of the outstanding voting shares of Roche Holding AG. As a result of this ownership, Novartis is deemed to have an indirect beneficial ownership interest under FAS 57 "Related Party Disclosures" of more than 10% of Genentech's voting common stock.

In June 2003, we entered into an agreement with Novartis Ophthalmics AG (subsequently merged into Novartis Pharma AG), under which Novartis Ophthalmics licensed the exclusive right to develop and market Lucentis outside of North America for diseases or disorders relating to the human eye, including the indication of age-related macular degeneration (or AMD). As part of this agreement, Novartis Ophthalmics pays 50% of Genentech's expenses relating to certain AMD Phase III trials and related development expenses. Genentech may share in a portion of the development costs incurred by Novartis outside of North America. We may also receive royalties on net sales of Lucentis products, which we will manufacture and supply to Novartis, outside of North America, and certain milestone payments.

In February 2004, Genentech, Inc., Novartis Pharma AG and Tanox, Inc. settled all litigation pending among them, and finalized the detailed terms of their three-party collaboration, begun in 1996, to govern the potential development and commercialization of certain anti-IgE antibodies including Xolair® (Omalizumab) and TNX-901. This arrangement modifies the arrangement related to Xolair that we entered into with Novartis in 2000. All three parties are co-developing Xolair in the U.S., and Genentech and Novartis are co-promoting Xolair in the U.S. and both will separately make payments to Tanox; Genentech's will be in the form of royalties. Genentech records all sales and cost of sales in the U.S. and Novartis will market the product in and record all sales and cost of sales in Europe. Genentech and Novartis then share the resulting U.S. and European operating profits, respectively, according to prescribed profit-sharing percentages. The existing royalty and profit-sharing percentage s between the three parties remain unchanged. Genentech is currently supplying the product and receives cost plus a mark-up similar to other supply arrangements. Novartis plans to assume primary manufacturing responsibilities in the future.

Contract revenue from Novartis was $10.2 million and $3.7 million in the second quarters of 2004 and 2003, respectively, and $20.9 million and $3.9 million in the first six months of 2004 and 2003, respectively. Novartis collaboration profit sharing expenses were $14.8 million and $26.6 million in the second quarter and first six months of 2004 and we had no such expenses in the same periods of 2003. R&D expenses included amounts related to Novartis of $10.2 million and $5.1 million in the second quarters of 2004 and 2003, respectively, and $19.9 million and $8.8 million in the first six months of 2004 and 2003, respectively.

The components of our acquisition-related other intangible assets, including those arising from the Redemption and push-down accounting, at June 30, 2004 and December 31, 2003, were as follows (in millions):

Page 14

Amortization expense of our other intangible assets was $61.5 million and $42.3 million in the second quarters of 2004 and 2003, respectively, and $104.5 million and $85.3 million in the first six months of 2004 and 2003, respectively. Included in the amortization expense in the second quarter of 2004 is an $18.6 million charge to marketing, general and administrative (or MG&A) expense related to the unamortized portion of the license fee that was paid to Alkermes, Inc. in 2000 upon U.S. Food and Drug Administration (or FDA) approval of Nutropin Depot. This license fee was being amortized over a 10 year estimated life and was included in MG&A expense. Our decision to discontinue commercialization of Nutropin Depot resulted in an impairment to this license, as we do not anticipate any significant future cashflows attributable to this license.

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

We record gains and losses on derivatives related to our equity hedging instruments in "other income, net" in the condensed consolidated statements of income. Such gains or losses were not material in the first six months of 2004 or 2003.

At June 30, 2004, net losses on derivative instruments expected to be reclassified from accumulated other comprehensive income to "other income, net" during the next twelve months are $6.0 million. These net losses are primarily due to the recognition of premiums related to maturing foreign currency exchange options.

Comprehensive income is comprised of net income and other comprehensive income (or OCI). OCI includes certain changes in stockholders' equity that are excluded from net income. Specifically, we include in OCI changes in the fair value of derivatives designated as effective cash flow hedges and unrealized gains and losses on our available-for-sale securities. The activity in comprehensive income, net of taxes, during the second quarters and first six months of 2004 and 2003 was as follows (in millions):

The components of accumulated OCI, net of taxes, were as follows (in millions):

Page 15

The activity in OCI, net of taxes, during the second quarters and first six months of 2004 and 2003 related to our available-for-sale securities was as follows (in millions):

The activity in OCI, net of taxes, during the second quarters and first six months of 2004 and 2003, related to our cash flow hedges was not material.

The following is a reconciliation of the denominator used in basic and diluted earnings per share (or EPS) computations for the second quarters and first six months of 2004 and 2003 (in thousands):

The following is a summary of the outstanding options to purchase common stock that were excluded from the computation of diluted EPS because such options were anti-dilutive in the respective periods presented (in thousands):

Page 16

The components of inventories were as follows (in millions):