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. I took Bruce's comments to highlight a glaring issue when it comes to a state's image, and therefore its overall branding. An example is Michigan vs. Indiana. Michigan has done an excellent job of following through on its branding strategy around "Pure Michigan", even down to the detail of the rest stops. Since a state's branding is often targeted to visitors, it makes sense that rest stops, being that point of first impression, should be significant. It is clear that Indiana doesn't care as much about the impression it gives visitors even though our branding as the Crossroads of America does place importance on travel. Bruce's point is quite logical and accurate.

  2. I appreciated the article. I guess I have become so accustomed to making my "pit stops" at places where I can ALSO get gasoline and something hot to eat, that I hardly even notice public rest stops anymore. That said, I do concur with the rationale that our rest stops (if we are to have them at all) can and should be both fiscally-responsible AND designed to make a positive impression about our state.

  3. I don't know about the rest of you but I only stop at these places for one reason, and it's not to picnic. I move trucks for dealers and have been to rest areas in most all 48 lower states. Some of ours need upgrading no doubt. Many states rest areas are much worse than ours. In the rest area on I-70 just past Richmond truckers have to hike about a quarter of a mile. When I stop I;m generally in a bit of a hurry. Convenience,not beauty, is a primary concern.

  4. Community Hospital is the only system to not have layoffs? That is not true. Because I was one of the people who was laid off from East. And all of the LPN's have been laid off. Just because their layoffs were not announced or done all together does not mean people did not lose their jobs. They cherry-picked people from departments one by one. But you add them all up and it's several hundred. And East has had a dramatic drop I in patient beds from 800 to around 125. I know because I worked there for 30 years.

  5. I have obtained my 6 gallon badge for my donation of A Positive blood. I'm sorry to hear that my donation was nothing but a profit center for the Indiana Blood Center.

ADVERTISEMENT