IBJNews

Appeals court rejects Lilly over Gemzar patent

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Co. has failed to win an appeals court rehearing over its loss of patent protection for the cancer drug Gemzar.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit today, in a notice posted Monday morning on the court’s website, said it denied a request for a rehearing before the original panel or for a hearing before the entire court.

Without an appeal, generic drugs are now poised to wipe away most of Lilly’s $750 million in annual U.S. revenue from the drug. Gemzar is approved to treat ovarian, breast, pancreatic and non-small-cell lung cancers.

Lilly had asked the appeals court to reconsider its decision rendered in July, which upheld an August 2009 ruling against Lilly’s patent claims by a federal court in Michigan.

Lilly had claimed that its patent on its method of using Gemzar to treat cancer should protect the drug until 2013. But that patent was ruled invalid, meaning that Lilly’s only valid patent on Gemzar is its composition-of-matter patent on the drug’s formula.

That composition-of-matter patent expires this month.

In spite of the last-ditch appeal, Lilly officials wrote late last month in a securities filing that they expect generic Gemzar to hit the U.S. market as early as mid-November.

Indian generic-drug maker Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., Hospira Inc. and Novartis AG’s Sandoz are seeking to sell lower-cost versions of the medicine.

 “We are currently considering our remaining legal options,” Mark Taylor, a Lilly spokesman, said in an e-mailed statement. “We will not speculate on whether generic competitors will be prepared to enter the market upon expiration of Gemzar’s compound patent in mid-November.”

Lilly had asked that the original three-judge panel reconsider the case or that it be heard before all active judges of the court, which specializes in U.S. patent law.

Of the nine active judges, four said the case should have been heard before the entire court, saying there are questions about the legal standard to determine if there has been double patenting.

Gemzar is the first of several blockbuster Lilly drugs that will see their patents expire between now and 2013. Generic versions of Zyprexa, Cymbalta, Evista and Strattera could zap nearly half of Lilly's current sales, putting great pressure on the company to find new drugs to take their place.


 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Lilly employees do like your Liberal judges now??
    Of the nine judges that ruled, the five the ruled AGAINST LILLY were Bryson (Clinton appointment), Gajarsa (Clintaon Appt), Dyk (Clinton Appt) and then the last two were by Bush II---which is why he is hated by everyone.

    Of note is that the Bush I and Reagan judges, they get it. They voted for Lilly.

    Point: Lilly employees vote liberal. And those politicians appt liberal judges---which are putting Lilly out of business. Too funny.

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. By Mr. Lee's own admission, he basically ran pro-bono ads on the billboard. Paying advertisers didn't want ads on a controversial, ugly billboard that turned off customers. At least one of Mr. Lee's free advertisers dropped out early because they found that Mr. Lee's advertising was having negative impact. So Mr. Lee is disingenous to say the city now owes him for lost revenue. Mr. Lee quickly realized his monstrosity had a dim future and is trying to get the city to bail him out. And that's why the billboard came down so quickly.

  2. Merchants Square is back. The small strip center to the south of 116th is 100% leased, McAlister’s is doing well in the outlot building. The former O’Charleys is leased but is going through permitting with the State and the town of Carmel. Mac Grill is closing all of their Indy locations (not just Merchants) and this will allow for a new restaurant concept to backfill both of their locations. As for the north side of 116th a new dinner movie theater and brewery is under construction to fill most of the vacancy left by Hobby Lobby and Old Navy.

  3. Yes it does have an ethics commission which enforce the law which prohibits 12 specific items. google it

  4. Thanks for reading and replying. If you want to see the differentiation for research, speaking and consulting, check out the spreadsheet I linked to at the bottom of the post; it is broken out exactly that way. I can only include so much detail in a blog post before it becomes something other than a blog post.

  5. 1. There is no allegation of corruption, Marty, to imply otherwise if false. 2. Is the "State Rule" a law? I suspect not. 3. Is Mr. Woodruff obligated via an employment agreement (contractual obligation) to not work with the engineering firm? 4. In many states a right to earn a living will trump non-competes and other contractual obligations, does Mr. Woodruff's personal right to earn a living trump any contractual obligations that might or might not be out there. 5. Lawyers in state government routinely go work for law firms they were formally working with in their regulatory actions. You can see a steady stream to firms like B&D from state government. It would be interesting for IBJ to do a review of current lawyers and find out how their past decisions affected the law firms clients. Since there is a buffer between regulated company and the regulator working for a law firm technically is not in violation of ethics but you have to wonder if decisions were made in favor of certain firms and quid pro quo jobs resulted. Start with the DOI in this review. Very interesting.

ADVERTISEMENT