IBJNews

Ariad loses $65M patent appeal against Eli Lilly

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Ariad Pharmaceuticals Inc. lost an appeal of a case against Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co. as a federal court again ruled that the company’s patent claims were invalid.

Monday’s decision throws out a $65.2 million verdict won by Ariad for royalties on Lilly’s osteoporosis drug Evista and sepsis medicine Xigris. The patent comes from research at Harvard University, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the Whitehead Institute and licensed to Cambridge, Massachusetts-based Ariad.

This is the second time the court has invalidated the aspects of the patent that were asserted against Lilly, ruling it failed to adequately describe the invention. The decision, posted on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Web site, came after the court reviewed the earlier finding.

The case was heard by 11 members of the court, rather than the three-judge panel that considered it the first time. The court wanted to address the broad legal question of whether federal patent law has a specific requirement that an inventor describe the invention that is separate from the mandate that it explain how others could replicate the work. The majority said the law requires both.

“Every patent must describe an invention,” Circuit Judge Alan D. Lourie wrote for the majority. “It is part of the quid pro quo of a patent: one describes an invention and, if the law’s other requirements are met, one obtains a patent.”

Describing how to make and use the invention “is a different task,” the court ruled.

Mark Taylor, a spokesman for Lilly, said the company was pleased with the decision and “we believe the court fairly applied long-standing patent law principles.”

Maria Cantor, a spokeswoman for Ariad, didn’t immediately return calls seeking comment.

In addition to awarding the $65.2 million for sales prior to May 2006, the jury said Lilly should pay royalties of 2.3 percent of sales of the two drugs. Evista generated $1.03 billion in global sales last year for Lilly.

The patent covers gene regulation, specifically of a protein called NF-KappaB, Ariad said. Reducing the protein alters the way cells respond to a stimulus, such as an infection. Identifying the protein helps researchers develop drugs for certain types of diseases.

Mponday’s decision covers four aspects, or claims, of the patent and relate to methods of reducing NF-KappaB activity in response to external influences.

The ruling is a blow to universities, which argued in court papers that the requirement hurts their ability to obtain patents on basic research.

“The closer you are to core research, the harder it is to describe your invention,” said John Dragseth, a patent lawyer with Fish & Richardson in Minneapolis, who wasn’t involved in the case. He said the decision maintains the status quo, and universities have dealt with the requirement for more than a decade.

Drugmakers including GlaxoSmithKline Plc and technology companies such as Microsoft Corp., Google Inc. and Samsung Electronics Co. supported Lilly. In its filing, Google said the separate requirement eliminates “overreaching” by inventors claiming to have discovered more than they did.

“Patents are not awarded for academic theories, no matter how groundbreaking or necessary to the later patentable inventions of others,” the majority ruled. “Requiring a written description of the invention limits patent protection to those who actually perform the difficult work of ‘invention.’”

Ariad shares rose 11 cents, to $3.30 each, in afternoon trading. Lilly stock gained 53 cents, to $36.70.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
 
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. OK Larry, let's sign Lance, shore up the PG and let's get to the finals.

  2. A couple of issues need some clarification especially since my name was on the list. I am not sure how this information was obtained and from where. For me, the amount was incorrect to begin with and the money does not come to me personally. I am guessing that the names listed are the Principal Investigators (individual responsible for the conduct of the trail) for the different pharmaceutical trials and not the entity which receives the checks. In my case, I participate in Phase II and Phase III trials which are required for new drug development. Your article should differentiate the amount of money received for consulting, for speaking fees, and for conduct of a clinical trial for new drug development. The lumping of all of these categories may give the reader a false impression of physicians just trying to get rich. The Sunshine Law may help to differentiate these categories in the future. The public should be aware that the Clinical Trial Industry could be a real economic driver for Indiana since these revenues supports jobs and new job creation. Nationally, this account for 10-20 billion which our State is missing out on to a large degree. Yes, new drug and technology development has gotten most of the attention (e.g. CTSI, BioCrossroads, etc.) However, serious money is being left on the table by not participating in the clinical trials to get those new drugs and medical devices on the market!!!! I guess that this is not sexy enough for academia.

  3. The address given for the Goldfish Swim Club is the Ace Hardware, is it closing?

  4. Out of state management and ownership. If Kite controlled it, everything would be leased. Of course, due to the roundabout, there is limited access to the south side of 116th now also. Just have to go down to the light.

  5. Hey smudge, You're opposed to arresting people for minor crimes? Sounds great! We should only focus on murders and such, right? Let's stand around and wait until someone shoots someone before we act. Whatever we do, we should never question anyone, frisk anyone, or arrest anyone unless they are actively engaged in shooting or stabbing. Very sound!

ADVERTISEMENT