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 Act).   Yes [x]  No [  ]

Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant's knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part III of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. [  ]

The approximate aggregate market value of voting stock held by non-affiliates of the registrant is $15,232,305,454 as of June 30, 2003.^(A)

Number of shares of Common Stock outstanding as of February 17, 2004:  527,028,756

___________

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.

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) 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.

i

Genentech is a leading biotechnology company that discovers, develops, manufactures, and commercializes biotherapeutics for significant unmet medical needs. Seventeen of the currently approved biotechnology products originated from or are based on Genentech science. We manufacture and commercialize in the United States 13 biotechnology products and license several additional products to other companies. See "Marketed Products" and "Licensed Products" below. Genentech was organized in 1976 as a California corporation and was reincorporated in Delaware in 1987.

On June 30, 1999, we redeemed all of our outstanding Special Common Stock held by stockholders other than Roche Holdings, Inc. (or Roche) at a price of $20.63 per share in cash with funds deposited by Roche for that purpose. We refer to this event as the "Redemption." As a result, on that date, Roche's percentage ownership of our outstanding Common Stock increased from 65% to 100%. Consequently, under accounting principles generally accepted in the United States (or GAAP), we were required to use push-down accounting to reflect in our financial statements the amounts paid for our stock in excess of our net book value. Push-down accounting required us to record $1,685.7 million of goodwill and $1,499.0 million of other intangible assets onto our balance sheet on June 30, 1999. For more information about push-down accounting, you should read "Redemption of Our Special Common Stock" note in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

Roche subsequently completed public offerings of our Common Stock in 1999 and 2000. At December 31, 2003, Roche's percentage ownership of our outstanding common stock was 58.4%. As a result of the Redemption and subsequent public offerings, we amended our certificate of incorporation and bylaws, amended our licensing and marketing agreements with F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd (or Hoffmann-La Roche), an affiliate of Roche, and entered into or amended certain agreements with Roche, which are discussed in "Relationship With Roche" of Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K.

We manufacture and commercialize in the United States 13 biotechnology products listed below.

Rituxan (rituximab) anti-CD20 antibody is for the treatment of patients with relapsed or refractory, low-grade or follicular, CD20-positive, B-cell non-Hodgkin's lymphoma, a cancer of the immune system, including retreatment, times 8 dosing and bulky disease. We co-developed Rituxan with Biogen Idec Inc. (or Biogen Idec), formerly known as IDEC Pharmaceuticals Corporation, from whom we license Rituxan.

Herceptin (trastuzumab) anti-HER2 antibody is the first humanized antibody for the treatment of certain patients with metastatic breast cancer whose tumors overexpress the Human Epidermal growth factor Receptor type 2 (or HER2) protein. Herceptin is approved for use as a first-line therapy in combination with Taxol® (paclitaxel), a product made by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company (or Bristol-Myers), and other drugs, and as a single agent in second- and third-line therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer who have tumors that overexpress the HER2 protein.

Nutropin Depot [somatropin (rDNA origin) for injectable suspension] is a long-acting growth hormone for the treatment of growth failure associated with pediatric growth hormone deficiency. It uses ProLease®, an injectable extended-release drug delivery system, which was developed by our collaborator Alkermes, Inc.

Nutropin [somatropin (rDNA origin) for injection] is a growth hormone for the treatment of growth hormone deficiency in children and adults, growth failure associated with chronic renal insufficiency prior to kidney

Page 1

transplantation and short stature associated with Turner syndrome. Nutropin is similar to Protropin (see below); however, it does not have the additional N-terminal amino acid, methionine, found in the Protropin chemical structure.

Protropin (somatrem for injection) is a growth hormone approved for the treatment of growth hormone inadequacy in children. Manufacture of Protropin was discontinued at the end of 2002 because physicians are typically initiating therapy with one of the Nutropin family products and the demand for Protropin has declined, but sales are expected to continue through the first half of 2004 or until inventory is depleted.

Nutropin AQ [somatropin (rDNA origin) for injection] is a liquid formulation growth hormone for the same indications as Nutropin and is aimed at providing improved convenience in administration.

TNKase (tenecteplase) is a single-bolus thrombolytic agent for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack).

Activase (alteplase, recombinant) is a tissue plasminogen activator (or t-PA) approved for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (heart attack), acute ischemic stroke (blood clots in the brain) within three hours of the onset of symptoms and acute massive pulmonary embolism (blood clots in the lungs).

Cathflo Activase (alteplase, recombinant) is a thrombolytic agent for the restoration of function to central venous access devices that have become occluded due to a blood clot.

Pulmozyme (dornase alfa, recombinant) is an inhalation solution for the treatment of cystic fibrosis.

Xolair (omalizumab) is an anti-IgE antibody, which we commercialize with Novartis, for the treatment of moderate-to-severe persistent asthma in adults and adolescents. In June 2003, we received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (or FDA) approval to market Xolair. We began shipping Xolair in July 2003.

Raptiva (efalizumab) is an anti-CD11a antibody co-developed with XOMA Ltd. It was approved by the FDA in October 2003 for the treatment of chronic moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis in adults age 18 or older who are candidates for systemic therapy or phototherapy. We began shipping Raptiva in November 2003.

Avastin (bevacizumab) is an antibody approved by the FDA on February 26, 2004 for use in combination with intravenous 5-fluorouracil-based chemotherapy as a treatment for patients with first-line (or previously untreated) metastatic cancer of the colon or rectum. We began shipping Avastin on February 26, 2004.

Sales of Rituxan and Herceptin accounted for more than 10 percent of our total consolidated revenues in the last three fiscal years. Sales of our growth hormone products accounted for more than 10 percent of our total consolidated revenues in 2002 and 2001. See "Product Sales" under Results of Operations in Part II, Item 7 of this Form 10-K for a discussion of the revenues contributed by each of our products in the last three years.

We receive royalty revenue under license agreements with companies that sell and/or manufacture products based on technology developed by us or on intellectual property to which we have rights. These licensed products are sometimes sold under different trademarks or trade names. Significant licensed products, representing approximately 94% of our royalty revenues in 2003, are as follows:

Page 2

___________

Our product development efforts, including those of our collaborative partners, cover a wide range of medical conditions, including cancer, respiratory disorders, cardiovascular diseases, endocrine disorders, and inflammatory and immune problems. Below is a summary of products, the related stages of development, and the estimate of completion of the phase.

Page 3

Page 4

Page 5

___________

*  Note: For those projects preparing for a Phase, the estimated date of completion refers to the date the project enters that Phase for which it was preparing.

In December 2003, we entered into a non-exclusive long-term manufacturing agreement with Lonza Biologics, a subsidiary of Lonza Group Ltd, under which Lonza will manufacture commercial quantities of Rituxan for us at Lonza's production facility in Portsmouth, New Hampshire. We may be obligated to make milestone payments to Lonza subject to Lonza's achievement of a series of factory preparation and process validation milestones, as well as receipt of FDA approval for the manufacturing of Rituxan bulk drug at the Lonza facility; the amounts of such payments cannot be estimated at this time. Following FDA approval at the Lonza facility, it is expected that commercial production would begin in 2005.

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 Hoffmann-La Roche's licensing agreement with us, which is discussed further in Part II, Item 7, "Relationship With Roche." As part of its opt-in, Hoffmann-La Roche paid us approximately $188.0 million and will pay 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 existing licensing agreement. As part of its opt-in, Hoffmann-La Roche paid us $8.4 million and will pay 50% of subsequent global development costs related to PRO70769 unle ss Roche opts out of the development of certain indications. We will receive royalties on net sales of Avastin and PRO70769 in countries outside of the U.S.

In June 2003, we entered into an agreement with Novartis Opthalmics, an affiliate of Novartis AG, under which Novartis Opthalmics licensed the exclusive right to develop and market Lucentis outside of North America for indications related to diseases of the eye. As part of this agreement, Novartis Opthalmics agreed to an upfront milestone and R&D reimbursement fee of $46.6 million and will pay 50% of Genentech's ongoing Phase III and related development expenses. Genentech is not responsible for any portion of the development and commercialization costs incurred by Novartis outside of North America, but we may receive additional payments for Novartis' achievement of certain clinical development and product approval milestones outside of North America. In addition, we will receive royalties on net sales of Lucentis products, which we will manufacture and supply to Novartis, outside of North America.

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, included an arrangement to co-develop additional indications of Raptiva and 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.

Page 6

In the second quarter of 2002, we entered into a manufacturing agreement with Immunex Corporation, a wholly-owned subsidiary of Amgen, to provide Immunex with additional manufacturing capacity for ENBREL® (etanercept) at Genentech's manufacturing facility in South San Francisco, California. As part of the agreement, we are responsible for facility modifications needed to manufacture ENBREL, including the internal labor costs and costs of certain raw materials for development runs. The facility modification and services costs, which include engineering and equipment costs, are reimbursable by Immunex. However, if certain milestones are not met, we are required to reimburse Immunex for up to 45% of the facility modification and services costs. Costs associated with development runs are reflected in R&D expense as incurred. Shipment of the product, including pre-approval product, to Immunex would be recorded as product sales based on an agreed upon price with the associated costs reflected in cost of sales. In the fourth quarter of 2003, we determined that certain milestones, including obtaining FDA approval for the manufacturing process, would likely not be met in the pre-agreed upon timeframe. As a result, certain equipment paid for by us related to ENBREL manufacturing will not qualify for reimbursement by Immunex. Certain ENBREL-related equipment in our consolidated balance sheet will be depreciated over the estimated useful life of the equipment and certain of it will be depreciated over the term of the supply arrangement.

In April 1996, we entered into a research collaboration agreement with XOMA to develop and commercialize Raptiva. The agreement was subsequently modified in the first quarter of 2003 to provide a convertible equity loan to XOMA of up to $80.0 million (outstanding at any one time) for its share of development costs for Raptiva through FDA approval, and a cash loan of up to $15.0 million for its share of U.S. marketing and sales costs prior to the date of regulatory approval of Raptiva. On October 27, 2003, the FDA approved Raptiva for the treatment of chronic moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis. Under the provisions of the agreement, XOMA elected to defer payment of $40.0 million of the development loan, of which we had previously recognized $11.9 million as an other-than-temporary impairment charge, as an offset against the proceeds from its share of U.S. operating profits on Raptiva. XOMA repaid the remaining development loan balance of approximately $29.6 million, of which we had pre viously recognized $8.8 million as an other-than-temporary impairment charge, with Series B preference shares. The Series B preference shares are convertible at our option into XOMA common shares at $7.75 per share. As of December 31, 2003, the commercial loan balance was $13.5 million, which will be repaid in cash through April 2004.

We have a U.S.-based pharmaceutical marketing, sales and distribution organization. Our sales efforts are focused on specialist physicians in private practice or at hospitals and major medical centers in the United States. In general, our products are sold largely to wholesalers, specialty distributors or directly to hospital pharmacies. We utilize common pharmaceutical company marketing techniques, including sales representatives calling on individual physicians and distributors, advertisements, professional symposia, direct mail, public relations and other methods.

Our products are also available at no charge to qualified patients under our uninsured patient programs in the United States. We have established the Genentech Endowment for Cystic Fibrosis to assist cystic fibrosis patients in the United States with obtaining Pulmozyme and the Genentech Access To Care Foundation for all other Genentech products.

We provide certain customer service programs relating to our products. We maintain a comprehensive patient-related product wastage replacement program for Rituxan, Activase and TNKase that, subject to specific conditions, provides customers the right to return these products to us for replacement. We also maintain expired product programs for all our products that, subject to certain specific conditions, provides customers the right to return products to us for replacement or credit for the price paid related to product expiration. We maintain the right to renew, modify or discontinue the above programs.

As discussed in the "Segment, Significant Customer And Geographic Information" note in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K, we had three major customers who individually provided over 10% of our total operating revenues in each of the last three years. Also discussed in the note are material net foreign revenues by country in 2003, 2002 and 2001.

Page 7

Raw materials and supplies required for the production of our principal products are available, in some instances from one supplier and in other instances, from multiple suppliers. In those cases where raw materials are only available through one supplier, such supplier may be either a sole source (the only recognized supply source available to us) or a single source (the only approved supply source for us among other sources). We have adopted policies to minimize raw material supply risks to the Company, including maintenance of greater levels of raw materials inventory and coordination with our collaborators to implement raw materials sourcing strategies.

We seek patents on inventions originating from our ongoing research and development (or R&D) activities. Patents, issued or applied for, cover inventions ranging from basic recombinant DNA techniques to processes relating to specific products and to the products themselves. Our issued patents extend for varying periods according to the date of patent application filing or grant and the legal term of patents in the various countries where patent protection is obtained. The actual protection afforded by a patent, which can vary from country to country, depends upon the type of patent, the scope of its coverage and the availability of legal remedies in the country. We have either been issued patents or have patent applications pending that relate to a number of current and potential products including products licensed to others. We consider that in the aggregate our patent applications, patents and licenses under patents owned by third-parties are of material importance to our opera tions. Important legal issues remain to be resolved as to the extent and scope of available patent protection for biotechnology products and processes in the United States and other important markets outside of the United States. We expect that litigation will likely be necessary to determine the validity and scope of certain of our proprietary rights. We are currently involved in a number of patent lawsuits, as either a plaintiff or defendant, and administrative proceedings relating to the scope of protection and validity of our patents and those of others. These lawsuits and proceedings may result in a significant commitment of our resources in the future and, depending on their outcome, may adversely affect the validity and scope of certain of our patent or other proprietary rights. We cannot assure you that the patents we obtain or the unpatented proprietary technology we hold will afford us significant commercial protection.

In general, we have obtained licenses from various parties that we deem to be necessary or desirable for the manufacture, use or sale of our products. These licenses (both exclusive and non-exclusive) generally require us to pay royalties to the parties on product sales.

Our trademarks, Activase, Avastin, Cathflo, Herceptin, Lucentis, Nutropin, Nutropin Depot, Nutropin AQ, Nutropin AQ Pen, Omnitarg, Protropin, Pulmozyme, Raptiva, Rituxan (licensed from Biogen Idec), TNKase, Xolair (licensed from Novartis) and Tarceva (licensed from OSI), in the aggregate are considered to be of material importance. All are covered by registrations or pending applications for registration in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and in other countries. Trademark protection continues in some countries for as long as the mark is used and, in other countries, for as long as it is registered. Registrations generally are for fixed, but renewable, terms.

Our royalty income for patent licenses, know-how and other related rights amounted to $500.9 million in 2003, $365.6 million in 2002, and $264.5 million in 2001. Royalty expenses were $244.6 million in 2003, $204.4 million in 2002 and $150.4 million in 2001.

We face competition from pharmaceutical companies, pharmaceutical divisions of chemical companies, and biotechnology companies of various sizes. Some competitors have greater clinical, regulatory and marketing resources and experience than we do. Many of these companies have commercial arrangements with other companies in the biotechnology industry to supplement their own research capabilities.

The introduction of new products or biogeneric versions of products or the development of new processes by competitors or new information about existing products may result in price reductions or product replacements, even for products protected by patents. However, we believe our competitive position is enhanced by our commitment to

Page 8

research leading to the discovery and development of new products and manufacturing methods. Other factors that should help us meet competition include ancillary services provided to support our products, customer service, and dissemination of technical information to prescribers of our products and to the health care community, including payers.

Over the longer term, our and our collaborators' abilities to successfully market current products, expand their usage and bring new products to the marketplace will depend on many factors, including but not limited to the effectiveness and safety of the products, FDA and foreign regulatory agencies' approvals of new products and indications, the degree of patent protection afforded to particular products, and the effect of managed care as an important purchaser of pharmaceutical products.

We face competition in five of our therapeutic markets. First, in the thrombolytic market, Activase and TNKase have lost market share and could lose additional market share to Centocor's Retavase® (approved in 1996 for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction) and to the use of mechanical reperfusion therapies to treat acute myocardial infarction; the resulting adverse effect on sales has been and could continue to be material. We expect that the use of mechanical reperfusion in lieu of thrombolytic therapy for the treatment of acute myocardial infarction will continue to grow. In addition, we face potential competition in the catheter clearance market from the reintroduction of Abbott Laboratories' Abbokinase® (urokinase) in October 2002.

Second, in the growth hormone market, we face competition from other companies currently selling growth hormone products and delivery devices. As a result of that competition, we have experienced a loss in market share in the past. Competitors have also received approval to market their existing growth hormone products for additional indications. As a result of this competition, market share of our growth hormone products may decline. In addition, we have certain patents related to the production of growth hormone that have expired and as a consequence those patents no longer exclude others from making growth hormone using the processes claimed by those patents. Any competitive entry as a result of expiration of our patents may cause further decline in our market share.

Third, in the non-Hodgkin's lymphoma market, Corixa Corporation received FDA approval in June 2003, for Bexxar™ (tositumomab and iodine I 131 tositumomab), which may potentially compete with our product Rituxan. Biogen Idec received marketing approval from the FDA and began commercial shipments in late March 2002 for Zevalin™ (ibritumomab tiuxetan), a product that could also potentially compete with Rituxan. Both Bexxar and Zevalin are radiolabeled molecules while Rituxan is not. We are also aware of other potentially competitive biologic therapies for non-Hodgkin's lymphoma in development.

Fourth, Raptiva competes with established therapies for moderate-to-severe psoriasis including oral systemics such as methotrexate and cyclosporin, as well as ultraviolet light therapies. In addition, Raptiva competes with Biogen Idec's biologic therapy Amevive® (alefacept), approved by the FDA in January 2003 for the treatment of moderate-to-severe psoriasis. Raptiva also competes with drugs approved for other indications that are used in psoriasis. Additional biologic therapies are expected to enter the psoriasis market in the next several years. ENBREL® (etanercept), marketed by Amgen and Wyeth in the U.S., is already approved for psoriatic arthritis, a condition associated with psoriasis. In the first quarter of 2003, Amgen announced positive phase III trial results using ENBREL for moderate-to-severe plaque psoriasis, and in July 2003 announced that ENBREL was filed for FDA approval to treat the condition. Other products are known to be in development for the psoriasis m arket.

Finally, Avastin may compete with Oxaliplatin. Avastin has been approved for use as first-line therapy for metastatic colorectal cancer patients in combination with intravenous 5-fluorouracil ("5-FU")-based chemotherapy. In the Avastin pivotal trial, first-line patients were treated with an irinotecan-based regimen, 5-FU/Leucovorin and CPT-11 (or "the Saltz Regimen"). In another Phase II trial, Avastin was found to provide benefit for first line patients when used in combination with 5-FU/Leucovorin alone. These regimens represent approximately 40% of all treatments used in the first-line setting. However, the use of these regimens is likely to decline as more physicians adopt Oxaliplatin-based regimens in the first-line setting. Avastin is currently being studied in combination with 5-FU/ Leucovorin and Oxaliplatin (the "FOLFOX Regimen") in patients with relapsed, metastatic colorectal cancer in a large randomized study through the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (the "E3200 Tria l"). If the results from the E3200 Trial are positive for the combination of Avastin and 5-FU/Leucovorin and Oxaliplatin or show a similar magnitude of benefit as previous colorectal cancer studies with Avastin, use of Avastin may increase as physicians

Page 9

increase their use of Avastin in combination with Oxaliplatin-based regimens in the relapsed, and also the first-line setting. However, if the results of the E3200 Trial are negative for the combination of Avastin and 5-FU/Leucovorin and Oxaliplatin, potential sales of Avastin may be materially adversely affected as physicians may limit their use of Avastin to irinotecan-based regimens. Physicians may also restrict their use of Avastin to first-line patients only.

Regulation by governmental authorities in the United States and other countries is a significant factor in the manufacture and marketing of our products and in ongoing research and product development activities. All of our products require regulatory approval by governmental agencies prior to commercialization. In particular, our products are subject to rigorous preclinical and clinical testing and other premarket approval requirements by the FDA and regulatory authorities in other countries. Various statutes and regulations also govern or influence the manufacturing, safety, labeling, storage, record keeping and marketing of such products. The lengthy process of seeking these approvals, and the subsequent compliance with applicable statutes and regulations, require the expenditure of substantial resources. Any failure by us to obtain or maintain, or any delay in obtaining or maintaining, regulatory approvals could materially adversely affect our business.

The activities required before a pharmaceutical product may be marketed in the United States begin with preclinical testing. Preclinical tests include laboratory evaluation of product chemistry and animal studies to assess the potential safety and efficacy of the product and its formulations. The results of these studies must be submitted to the FDA as part of an Investigational New Drug Application (or IND), which must be reviewed by the FDA before proposed clinical testing can begin. Typically, clinical testing involves a three-phase process. In Phase I, clinical trials are conducted with a small number of subjects to determine the early safety profile and the pattern of drug distribution and metabolism. In Phase II, clinical trials are conducted with groups of patients afflicted with a specified disease in order to provide enough data to statistically evaluate the preliminary efficacy, optimal dosages and expanded evidence of safety. In Phase III, large scale, multicenter, compara tive clinical trials are conducted with patients afflicted with a target disease in order to provide enough data to statistically evaluate the efficacy and safety of the product, as required by the FDA. The results of the preclinical and clinical testing of a chemical pharmaceutical product are then submitted to the FDA in the form of a New Drug Application (or NDA), or for a biological pharmaceutical product in the form of a Biologic License Application (or BLA), for approval to commence commercial sales. In responding to a NDA or a BLA, the FDA may grant marketing approval, request additional information or deny the application if it determines that the application does not provide an adequate basis for approval. We can not assure you that any approval required by the FDA will be obtained on a timely basis, if at all.

Among the conditions for a NDA or a BLA approval, is the requirement that the prospective manufacturer's quality control and manufacturing procedures conform on an ongoing basis with current Good Manufacturing Practices (or GMP). Before approval of a BLA, the FDA will perform a prelicensing inspection of the facility to determine its compliance with GMP and other rules and regulations. In complying with GMP, manufacturers must continue to expend time, money and effort in the area of production and quality control to ensure full compliance. After the establishment is licensed for the manufacture of any product, manufacturers are subject to periodic inspections by the FDA. Any determination by the FDA of manufacturing related deficiencies could materially adversely affect our business.

The requirements that we must satisfy to obtain regulatory approval by governmental agencies in other countries prior to commercialization of our products in such countries can be as rigorous, costly and uncertain.

We are also subject to various laws and regulations relating to safe working conditions, clinical, laboratory and manufacturing practices, the experimental use of animals and the use and disposal of hazardous or potentially hazardous substances, including radioactive compounds and infectious disease agents, used in connection with our research. The extent of governmental regulation that might result from any legislative or administrative action cannot be accurately predicted.

The levels of revenues and profitability of biopharmaceutical companies may be affected by the continuing efforts of government and third-party payers to contain or reduce the costs of health care through various means. For example, in certain foreign markets, pricing or profitability of therapeutic and other pharmaceutical products is subject to

Page 10

governmental control. In the United States there have been, and we expect that there will continue to be, a number of federal and state proposals to implement similar governmental control. While we cannot predict whether any such legislative or regulatory proposals will be adopted, the adoption of such proposals could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and profitability.

In addition, in the United States and elsewhere, sales of therapeutic and other pharmaceutical products are dependent in part on the availability of reimbursement to the physician or consumer from third-party payers, such as the government or private insurance plans. Government and private third-party payers are increasingly challenging the prices charged for medical products and services, through class action litigation and otherwise. For example, the Medicare Prescription Drug Improvement and Modernization Act, enacted in December 2003 (the "Medicare Act"), decreased the Medicare reimbursement rate for many drugs, including our oncology products, possibly offset to some extent by increased physician payment rates for drug administration services related to certain of our oncology products. It is unclear how these changes in reimbursement rates for products administered by oncologists in the office setting will affect physician prescribing practices and ultimately the sales of our prod ucts. Depending on changes in physician prescribing conduct or usage of the product as a result of this legislation or any future legislation limiting or decreasing drug reimbursement rates to physicians, sales of our products may be materially adversely affected. See "Decreases in Third Party Reimbursement Rates May Affect our Product Sales" under "Forward-Looking Information and Cautionary Factors that May Affect Future Results."

A major portion of our operating expenses to date is related to R&D. R&D expenses consist of independent R&D costs and costs associated with collaborative R&D and in-licensing arrangements. R&D expenses were $722.0 million in 2003, $623.5 million in 2002, and $526.2 million in 2001. Our R&D efforts have been the primary source of our products. We intend to maintain our strong commitment to R&D as an essential component of our product development effort. Licensed technology developed by outside parties is an additional source of potential products.

As of December 31, 2003, we had 6,226 employees.

We seek to comply with all applicable statutory and administrative requirements concerning environmental quality. We have made, and will continue to make, expenditures for environmental compliance and protection. Expenditures for compliance with environmental laws have not had, and are not expected to have, a material effect on our capital expenditures, results of operation, or competitive position.

The following information can be found on our website at http://www.gene.com or can be obtained free of charge by contacting our Investor Relations Department at (650) 225-1599 or by sending an e-mail message to investor.relations@gene.com:

• our annual report on Form 10-K, quarterly reports on Form 10-Q, current reports on Form 8-K, and all amendments to those reports as soon as reasonably practicable after such material is electronically filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission;

• our policies related to corporate governance, including Genentech's Good Operating Principles (Genentech's code of ethics applying to Genentech's directors, officers and employees) as well as Genentech's Code of Ethics applying to our chief executive officer and senior financial officials; and

• the charter of the Audit Committee of our Board of Directors.

Page 11

Our primary facilities are located in a research and industrial park in South San Francisco, California in both leased and owned properties. In South San Francisco, we currently occupy 33 buildings for our research and development, manufacturing, marketing and administrative activities. Of the buildings, 19 are owned and 14 are leased. Of the 14 leased buildings, 4 were leased as of December 31, 2003, pursuant to synthetic lease arrangements. On January 2, 2004, upon the expiration of one of the synthetic leases, we purchased the related land and office building from our lessor at a cost of $25.0 million. In late 2003, we purchased a building in Redwood City, California, to accommodate our data center. We have made and continue to make improvements to these properties to accommodate our growth.

We also lease a manufacturing facility in Vacaville, California. This property is leased pursuant to a synthetic lease arrangement and is consolidated in accordance with accounting rules adopted in 2003 and included in our property, plant and equipment in the accompanying consolidated balance sheet at December 31, 2003. See "Leases, Commitments and Contingencies" in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for a discussion of our synthetic lease arrangements.

Outside of North America we are finishing construction on a cell culture manufacturing facility and a warehouse in Porrino, Spain for the manufacture of Avastin for clinical trials.

We also lease additional office facilities in several locations throughout the United States. We believe our facilities are in good operating condition and that the real property owned or leased are adequate for all present and near term uses. We have over 275,000 liters of installed fermentation capacity worldwide to support our current clinical and commercial production needs. Additionally, in December 2003, we entered into a non-exclusive long-term manufacturing agreement with Lonza to help us meet a portion of our Rituxan production requirements for the next several years. Additional manufacturing capacity may be added to Vacaville or other sites depending on the success of potential products in clinical trials. We believe our capital resources are sufficient to purchase or construct any additional facilities required to meet our long-term growth needs.

We are a party to various legal proceedings, including patent infringement litigation, 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 litigation-related liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2003 and 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 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

Page 12

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 noti ce 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 and therefore the outcome of this matter cannot be determined at this time.

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.

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 m onetary 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 the arbitrators in the Tanox/Genentech proceedings have not yet resolved it. 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. On February 25, 2004, the parties settled and agreed to dismiss with prejudice all claims from the arbitration that began on January 13, 2003.

Page 13

On April 11, 2003, MedImmune, Inc. filed a lawsuit against Genentech, City of Hope National Medical Center (or 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. District Court granted summary judgment in Genentech's favor on all of MedImmune's antitrust and unfair competition claims. MedImmune is seeking to amend its complaint to reallege certain claims for antitrust and unfair competition and the Court has not yet ruled on this issue. Discovery in the case on the remaining claims is ongoing and trial is currently set to begin on August 30, 2004. An estimate of any potential loss or range of loss cannot be made at this time.

We recorded $53.9 million in 2003 for accrued interest and bond costs related to the COH trial judgment. 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 COH trial judgment, in the second 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 and investments on our consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2003 and 2002. In addition, we accrued $4.7 million in 2003 and $9.1 million in 2002 of royalty expenses related to the COH trial judgment, which were 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 suret y 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 and other long-term liabilities in the consolidated balance sheets at December 31, 2003 and 2002. We developed this estimate 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 paid, if any, in connection with the COH matter will depend on the outcome of the appeal.

See the "Leases, Commitments and Contingencies" note in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for further information regarding our litigations.

In August 2003, we settled our patent litigation with Amgen, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The settlement of our complaint, originally filed in 1996, resulted in a one-time payment from Amgen to us. The settlement resulted in an increase of approximately $0.19 in earnings per diluted share for 2003 and was reported as a litigation-related special item in our consolidated statements of income. In November 2003, we received a settlement payment from Bayer, one of our licensees, in connection with the settlement of a breach of contract action, which resulted in an increase of approximately $0.03 in earnings per diluted share for 2003 and was reported as a litigation-related special item.

Not applicable.

Page 14

Executive Officers of the Company

The executive officers of the Company and their respective ages (ages as of December 31, 2003) and positions with the Company are as follows:

___________

*  Members of the Executive Committee of the Company.

The Board of Directors elects all officers annually. There is no family relationship between or among any of the officers or directors.

Arthur D. Levinson, Ph.D. was appointed Chairman of the Board of Directors in September 1999 and was elected President and Chief Executive Officer and a director of the Company in July 1995. Since joining the Company in 1980, Dr. Levinson has been a Senior Scientist, Staff Scientist and Director of the Company's Cell Genetics Department. Dr. Levinson was appointed Vice President of Research Technology in April 1989, Vice President of Research in May 1990 and Senior Vice President in January 1993. Dr. Levinson was formerly on the editorial boards of "Molecular Biology and Medicine" and "Molecular and Cellular Biology," and is active in the American Society of Microbiology, the New York Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. From 1977 to 1980, Dr. Levinson was a Postdoctoral Fellow in the Department of Microbiology at the University of California, San Francisco. In 1977, Dr. Levinso n received his Ph.D. in Biochemistry from Princeton University. Dr. Levinson also serves as a member of the Board of Directors of Apple Computer, Inc.

Susan D. Desmond-Hellmann, M.D., M.P.H. was appointed Executive Vice President, Development and Product Operations in September 1999. She has served as Chief Medical Officer since December 1996. She previously served as Senior Vice President, Development from December 1997 until September 1999, among other positions, since joining Genentech in March 1995 as a Clinical Scientist. Prior to joining Genentech, she held the position of Associate Director at Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Stephen G. Juelsgaard, J.D. was appointed Executive Vice President in September 2002, Vice President and General Counsel in July 1994 and Secretary in April 1997. He joined Genentech in July 1985 as Corporate Counsel and subsequently served as Senior Corporate Counsel from 1988 to 1990, Chief Corporate Counsel from 1990 to 1993, Vice President, Corporate Law from 1993 to 1994, Assistant Secretary from 1994 to 1997 and Senior Vice President from April 1998 to September 2002.

Louis J. Lavigne, Jr. was appointed Executive Vice President of Genentech in March 1997 and Chief Financial Officer in August 1988. He previously served as Senior Vice President from July 1994 to March 1997 and as Vice President from July 1986 to July 1994. Mr. Lavigne joined Genentech in July 1982 from Pennwalt Corporation and became Controller in May 1983 and an officer of Genentech in February 1984.

Page 15

Myrtle S. Potter was appointed Executive Vice President, Commercial Operations and Chief Operating Officer in May 2000. Prior to joining Genentech, she held the positions of President of U.S. Cardiovascular/Metabolics from November 1998 to May 2000, Senior Vice President of Sales, U.S. Cardiovascular/Metabolics from March 1998 to October 1998, Group Vice President of Worldwide Medicines Group from February 1997 to February 1998 and Vice President of Strategy and Economics, U.S. Pharmaceutical Group from April 1996 to January 1997 at Bristol-Myers Squibb. Previously, she held the position of Vice President of the Northeast Region Business Group at Merck & Co., Inc. from October 1993 to March 1996.

Richard H. Scheller, Ph.D. was appointed Executive Vice President, Research in September 2003. Previously, he served as Senior Vice President, Research from March 2001 to September 2003. Prior to joining Genentech, he served as Professor of Molecular and Cellular Physiology and of Biological Sciences at Stanford University Medical Center from September 1982 to February 2001 and as an investigator at the Howard Hughes Medical Institute from September 1990 to February 2001. He received his first academic appointment to Stanford University in 1982. He was appointed to the esteemed position of professor of Molecular and Cellular Physiology in 1993 and as an investigator in the Howard Hughes Medical Institute in 1994.

David A. Ebersman was appointed Senior Vice President, Product Operations in May 2001. He joined Genentech in February 1994 as a Business Development Analyst and subsequently served as Manager, Business Development from February 1995 to February 1996, Director, Business Development from February 1996 to March 1998, Senior Director, Product Development from March 1998 to February 1999 and Vice President, Product Development from February 1999 to May 2001. Prior to joining Genentech, he held the position of Research Analyst at Oppenheimer & Company, Inc.

Robert L. Garnick, Ph.D. was appointed Senior Vice President, Regulatory, Quality and Compliance in February 2001. Previously, he served as Vice President, Regulatory Affairs from February 1998 to February 2001, Vice President, Quality from April 1994 to February 1998, Senior Director, Quality Control from 1990 to 1994 and Director, Quality Control from 1988 to 1990. He joined Genentech in August 1984 from Armour Pharmaceutical, where he held various positions.

John M. Whiting was appointed Vice President in January 2001 and Controller and Chief Accounting Officer in October 1997. He previously served as Director, Financial Planning and Analysis from January 1997 to October 1997 and as Director, Operations, Financial Planning and Analysis from December 1996 to January 1997. He also served in a variety of financial positions at Genentech from 1989 to 1996. Prior to joining Genentech, he served as Senior Audit Manager at Arthur Young.

Page 16

See the footnotes labeled "Redemption of Our Special Common Stock," "Relationship With Roche" and "Capital Stock" in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K.

Stock Trading Symbol:  DNA

Our Common Stock trades on the New York Stock Exchange under the symbol "DNA." No dividends have been paid on the Common Stock. We currently intend to retain all future income for use in the operation of our business and for future stock repurchases and, therefore, do not anticipate paying any cash dividends in the foreseeable future.

As of December 31, 2003, there were approximately 1,921 stockholders of record of our Common Stock, one of which is Cede & Co., a nominee for Depository Trust Company (or DTC). All of the shares of Common Stock held by brokerage firms, banks and other financial institutions as nominees for beneficial owners are deposited into participant accounts at DTC, and are therefore considered to be held of record by Cede & Co. as one stockholder.

See the "Capital Stock" note in the Notes to Consolidated Financial Statements of Part II, Item 8 of this Form 10-K for information on our stock repurchases.

Page 17

The following selected consolidated financial information has been derived from the audited consolidated financial statements. The information below is not necessarily indicative of results of future operations, and should be read in conjunction with Item 7, "Management's Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations" of this Form 10-K and the consolidated financial statements and related notes thereto included in Item 8 of this Form 10-K in order to fully understand factors that may affect the comparability of the information presented below.