August 23, 2019
Authored and Edited by Yieyie Yang, Ph.D.; Samhitha Muralidhar Medatia; Elizabeth D. Ferrill
In Eli Lilly & Company v. Hospira, Inc., Nos. 2018-2128, 2018-2127 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 9, 2019), the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of the doctrine of equivalents and clarified that the tangential exception of prosecution history estoppel should not be viewed too rigidly.
The dispute centered on whether Lilly’s claims at issue, which recited particular methods of treatment by administering pemetrexed disodium, covered administration of a different pemetrexed salt, pemetrexed ditromethamine, under DOE. During patent prosecution, Lilly submitted a claim amendment changing “an antifolate” to “pemetrexed disodium.” The Federal Circuit held that the amendment did not bar the application of DOE because narrowing “antifolate” to “pemetrexed disodium” could not possibly distinguish art referencing pemetrexed disodium in then-pending obviousness rejections. The court emphasized that when determining whether prosecution history estoppel applies to DOE, courts should analyze the context surrounding an amendment. In this case, the court concluded that the reason for the amendment was not to cede other, functionally identical, pemetrexed salts, and that it was unlikely that competitors would be justified in believing that equivalent pemetrexed salts would not infringe. The court refused to adopt a bright-line rule that the tangential exception does not apply where the reason for the amendment and the equivalent in question both related to the same claim element. Considering the prosecution history as a whole and the patent-at-issue itself, the court concluded that it was implausible that the reason for Lilly’s amendment was to surrender other pemetrexed salts.
Copyright © 2019 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP.
DISCLAIMER: Although we wish to hear from you, information exchanged in this blog cannot and does not create an attorney-client relationship. Please do not post any information that you consider to be personal or confidential. If you wish for Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP to consider representing you, in order to establish an attorney-client relationship you must first enter a written representation agreement with Finnegan. Contact us for additional information. One of our lawyers will be happy to discuss the possibility of representation with you. Additional disclaimer information.
Lecture
Patent Protection for Software-Related Inventions in Europe and the USA Training Course
June 5, 2024
Hybrid
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.