直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
    • AI + Finnegan
    • Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy
    • Diligence, Licensing, and Opinions
    • Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials
    • Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings
    • Prosecution and Portfolio Management
    • Trademark and Brand Management
    • AI, Electronics, and Information Technology
    • Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials
    • Communications
    • Consumer Goods and Services
    • Energy
    • Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure
    • Life Sciences
    • Transportation and Logistics
  • Experience

Experience

Eli Lilly and Co. wins challenge to patents covering its osteoporosis drug, Evista®

Eli Lilly and Company

Teva Pharma USA, Inc.

In an important victory for firm client, Eli Lilly and Company, the Southern District of Indiana rejected claims by Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. alleging that all of Lilly’s patents covering Lilly’s blockbuster drug for the treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis, Evista®, are invalid.  The court granted a permanent injunction preventing Teva from marketing its generic version of Evista® before the expiration of four of Lilly’s patents covering Evista®, the last of which expires in 2014.  Teva appealed the decision, and in September 2010, the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of Lilly, affirming the validity of Lilly’s patents for Evista®. Chief Judge Rader, writing for a unanimous panel, held that there was no evidence that "would teach, suggest or motivate or supply any common sense reason" for a person to arrive at Lilly’s invention.  The Federal Circuit further affirmed that the patents were enabled, observing that the initiation of a human clinical trial presumptively establishes the credibility of the asserted utility.

Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Pharma USA, Inc., 1:06-cv-01017, S.D. Ind., Judges Barker, Magnus-Stinson

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Eli Lilly and Company, 09-1071; 10-1005, -1033, Fed. Cir., Judges Linn, Michel, Prost, Rader

Related Professionals

Laura P. Masurovsky
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4043
Email
Mark J. Feldstein, Ph.D.
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4092
Email
Jennifer H. Roscetti
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4150
Email
Alissa K. Lipton
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4293
Email
William B. Raich, Ph.D.
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4210
Email
J. Derek McCorquindale
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2768
Email

Related Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy

Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals

Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials

Branded Hatch-Waxman (ANDA) Litigation and Trials

Related Industries

Life Sciences

Pharmaceutical

Related Experiences

Eli Lilly and Company v. Sicor Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Eli Lilly and Company

Intertrust Technologies Corp. v. Macrovision, Inc.

Intertrust Technologies Corp.

Wyeth v. Anchen Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Wyeth

Eli Lilly and Co. v. Apotex Inc.

Eli Lilly and Company

Wyeth v. Impax Laboratories Inc.

Wyeth

Quest v. Acclarent

Acclarent; Exploramed II Incorporated

NetApp, Inc./HPE et al. v. KOM Software Inc.

NetApp, Inc/HPE et al.

Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH v. Eli Lilly and Company

Eli Lilly and Company

NorthStar Systems LLC v. BMW et al.

BMW of North America et al.

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP