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. The $104K to CRC would go toward debts service on $486M of existing debt they already have from other things outside this project. Keystone buys the bonds for 3.8M from CRC, and CRC in turn pays for the parking and site work, and some time later CRC buys them back (with interest) from the projected annual property tax revenue from the entire TIF district (est. $415K / yr. from just this property, plus more from all the other property in the TIF district), which in theory would be about a 10-year term, give-or-take. CRC is basically betting on the future, that property values will increase, driving up the tax revenue to the limit of the annual increase cap on commercial property (I think that's 3%). It should be noted that Keystone can't print money (unlike the Federal Treasury) so commercial property tax can only come from consumers, in this case the apartment renters and consumers of the goods and services offered by the ground floor retailers, and employees in the form of lower non-mandatory compensation items, such as bonuses, benefits, 401K match, etc.

  2. $3B would hurt Lilly's bottom line if there were no insurance or Indemnity Agreement, but there is no way that large an award will be upheld on appeal. What's surprising is that the trial judge refused to reduce it. She must have thought there was evidence of a flagrant, unconscionable coverup and wanted to send a message.

  3. As a self-employed individual, I always saw outrageous price increases every year in a health insurance plan with preexisting condition costs -- something most employed groups never had to worry about. With spouse, I saw ALL Indiana "free market answer" plans' premiums raise 25%-45% each year.

  4. It's not who you chose to build it's how they build it. Architects and engineers decide how and what to use to build. builders just do the work. Architects & engineers still think the tarp over the escalators out at airport will hold for third time when it snows, ice storms.

  5. http://www.abcactionnews.com/news/duke-energy-customers-angry-about-money-for-nothing

ADVERTISEMENT