Experience
Ariad Pharmaceutical
Eli Lilly and Company
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in an en banc opinion, confirmed the existence of a separate written description requirement that ensures that inventors have actually invented and described the subject matter claimed in their patents. The decision reversed a jury verdict against Finnegan client Eli Lilly and Company. Lilly had previously been found liable for infringing Ariad’s ’516 patent, and the jury had awarded Ariad a multi-million dollar verdict. The en banc opinion held that the asserted claims of the ’516 patent failed to satisfy the written description requirement of section 112 and were thus invalid.
Ariad Pharmaceutical v. Eli Lilly and Company, 1:02-cv-11280, D. Mass., Judge Zobel
Eli Lilly and Company v. Ariad Pharmaceutical, 08-1248, Fed. Cir., Judges Bryson, Dyk, Gajarsa, Linn, Lourie, Mayer, Michel, Moore, Newman, Prost, Rader
Federal Circuit win for Eli Lilly’s Xigris®, a recombinant form of human Activated Protein
Eli Lilly and Company
DuPont prevails on a written description defense to patent infringement at the Federal Circuit
DuPont Nutrition Biosciences APS
Unified Patents prevails in Federal Circuit appeal challenging PTAB final written decision
Unified Patents, Inc.
Eli Lilly and Company
Cumberland Pharmaceuticals
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.
We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.