Lilly loses to Ariad (Harvard, MIT)
In what may have been a surprise to many observers, Lilly lost its case to Ariad concerning Evista and Xigris in a jury verdict. One of Lilly's defenses concerned the length of time the patent application (by Harvard/MIT) had been before the USPTO (16 years), and the verdict of May 4 came one day AFTER the USPTO closed comments on proposed changes to continuing application procedure.
from the New York Times:
Lilly argued in the trial that Ariad's patent covered a natural phenomenon and was therefore invalid. It also said its two drugs were under development before the protein at the heart of the Ariad patent was even discovered.
"The Ariad position is equivalent to discovering that gravity is the force that makes water run downhill and then demanding the owners of all the existing hydroelectric plants begin to pay patent royalties on their use of gravity," Robert A. Armitage, Lilly's general counsel, said in a statement yesterday.
Lilly said it would ask the judge, Rya W. Zobel, to set aside the verdict and, if that failed, would appeal. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is re-examining the validity of the patent at the request of Lilly.
The NY Times brought up similarities to the University of Rochester case on COX-2, which Rochester lost on summary judgment (the matter did not get to a jury). That case was a bit different in that Rochester tried to claim a method of treatment employing a COX-2 inhibitor without disclosing a COX-2 inhibitor or how to make one. Rochester did disclose how to test for one, which is a different matter. These days, not so many people are that anxious to use Vioxx or Celebrex (tho some people are).
From BusinessWeek:
But Leora Ben-Ami, a partner at Kaye Scholer who represented Ariad, disagreed.
"This is not a patent on a natural process -- it's a method of interfering and changing a process in the body," she said. "We were gratified by the jury verdict."
Lilly said it would ask the trial court judge to overturn the verdict and would file an appeal if necessary. Berger said Ariad was confident the verdict would be upheld.
The Ariad patent was issued in 2002 after a 16-year approval process. By the time the patent was issued, drugs targeting the NF-kappa B molecule pathway accounted for billions of dollars in annual sales.
Ariad's co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research and the president and fellows of Harvard College.
from the New York Times:
Lilly argued in the trial that Ariad's patent covered a natural phenomenon and was therefore invalid. It also said its two drugs were under development before the protein at the heart of the Ariad patent was even discovered.
"The Ariad position is equivalent to discovering that gravity is the force that makes water run downhill and then demanding the owners of all the existing hydroelectric plants begin to pay patent royalties on their use of gravity," Robert A. Armitage, Lilly's general counsel, said in a statement yesterday.
Lilly said it would ask the judge, Rya W. Zobel, to set aside the verdict and, if that failed, would appeal. The United States Patent and Trademark Office is re-examining the validity of the patent at the request of Lilly.
The NY Times brought up similarities to the University of Rochester case on COX-2, which Rochester lost on summary judgment (the matter did not get to a jury). That case was a bit different in that Rochester tried to claim a method of treatment employing a COX-2 inhibitor without disclosing a COX-2 inhibitor or how to make one. Rochester did disclose how to test for one, which is a different matter. These days, not so many people are that anxious to use Vioxx or Celebrex (tho some people are).
From BusinessWeek:
But Leora Ben-Ami, a partner at Kaye Scholer who represented Ariad, disagreed.
"This is not a patent on a natural process -- it's a method of interfering and changing a process in the body," she said. "We were gratified by the jury verdict."
Lilly said it would ask the trial court judge to overturn the verdict and would file an appeal if necessary. Berger said Ariad was confident the verdict would be upheld.
The Ariad patent was issued in 2002 after a 16-year approval process. By the time the patent was issued, drugs targeting the NF-kappa B molecule pathway accounted for billions of dollars in annual sales.
Ariad's co-plaintiffs in the lawsuit are the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research and the president and fellows of Harvard College.
posted by Lawrence B. Ebert at 9:01 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home