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. PJ - Mall operators like Simon, and most developers/ land owners, establish individual legal entities for each property to avoid having a problem location sink the ship, or simply structure the note to exclude anything but the property acting as collateral. Usually both. The big banks that lend are big boys that know the risks and aren't mad at Simon for forking over the deed and walking away.

  2. Do any of the East side residence think that Macy, JC Penny's and the other national tenants would have letft the mall if they were making money?? I have read several post about how Simon neglected the property but it sounds like the Eastsiders stopped shopping at the mall even when it was full with all of the national retailers that you want to come back to the mall. I used to work at the Dick's at Washington Square and I know for a fact it's the worst performing Dick's in the Indianapolis market. You better start shopping there before it closes also.

  3. How can any company that has the cash and other assets be allowed to simply foreclose and not pay the debt? Simon, pay the debt and sell the property yourself. Don't just stiff the bank with the loan and require them to find a buyer.

  4. If you only knew....

  5. The proposal is structured in such a way that a private company (who has competitors in the marketplace) has struck a deal to get "financing" through utility ratepayers via IPL. Competitors to BlueIndy are at disadvantage now. The story isn't "how green can we be" but how creative "financing" through captive ratepayers benefits a company whose proposal should sink or float in the competitive marketplace without customer funding. If it was a great idea there would be financing available. IBJ needs to be doing a story on the utility ratemaking piece of this (which is pretty complicated) but instead it suggests that folks are whining about paying for being green.

ADVERTISEMENT