Ariad pharmaceuticals v. eli lilly & company - meyers,schoen - 3-2010_layout
ARIAD PHARMACEUTICALS V. ELI LILLY & COMPANY
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (the Court that hears all patent appeals) issued a decision on
March 22, 2010 in the case of Ariad Pharmaceuticals, Inc., v. Eli Lilly & Company (--F.3d--, 2010 WL 1007369(C.A.Fed., 2010)) reaffirming a written description requirement that is separate and distinct from the
enablement requirement under the patent statute.
Ariad Pharmaceuticals obtained a patent on methods for treating human disease by reducing activity of a
protein complex called NF-kB (U.S. patent number 6,410,516). The patent disclosed three broad classes of
NF-kB inhibitors but failed to describe any specific inhibitors. Ariad sued Eli Lilly alleging that Lilly sold two
infringing drugs (Evista® and Xigris®). A jury found that both of Lilly’s drugs infringed Ariad’s patent.
On appeal, the Federal Circuit determined that Ariad’s patent was invalid for failing to describe any specific
inhibitory compounds. According to the Federal Circuit, the so-called written description requirement is not
satisfied by a generic statement of an invention’s boundaries. Rather, when a patent claims a generic function
or result, it must provide a sufficient number of examples to accomplish that function.
The ruling in Ariad confirms the existence of a written description requirement in the patent law that isseparate and distinct from other patent law requirements, such as the enablement requirement. The decision
may impact the ability of university researchers and others to meet the written description requirement for
basic research prior to some proof of concept. The Ariad decision, while reaffirming the written descriptionrequirement, does not provide substantive guidance as to how much disclosure is required to support generic
patent claims. Rather, in keeping with a long line of Court precedent, the Ariad case states that the disclosuremust be sufficient to reasonably convey to those skilled in the art that the patent applicant had possession of
the invention at the time of filing. Thus, while greatly anticipated, this decision does not substantially change
the existing law regarding the written description requirement. M A R C H 2 0 1 0 BROWN RUDNICK LLP is an international law firm with offices in the United States New York Seven Times Square
and Europe. Our 200 attorneys provide assistance across key areas of the law, including
corporate, intellectual property, tax, government law and strategies, climate and energy,
complex litigation and arbitration, finance, bankruptcy and restructuring, and real estate. Boston One Financial Center Boston, MA 02111
For further information on this topic, please contact your Brown Rudnick attorney or
Washington, DC 601 Thirteenth Street NW, Suite 600 Hartford City Place 1 185 Asylum Street Hartford, CT 06103 +1.860.509.6500 +1.860.509.6501 [fax] Providence 121 South Main Street Providence, RI 02903 +1.401.276.2600 +1.401.276.2601 [fax] London 8 Clifford Street London, W1S 2LQ United Kingdom +44.20.7851.6000 +44.20.7851.6100 [fax] Dublin Alexandra House The Sweepstakes Ballsbridge, Dublin 4 Ireland +353.1.664.1738 +353.1.664.1838 [fax] www.brownrudnick.com
Information contained in this Alert is not intended
to constitute legal advice by the author or the
attorneys at Brown Rudnick LLP, and they expressly
disclaim any such interpretation by any party.
Specific legal advice depends on the facts of each
situation and may vary from situation to situation.
Distribution of this Alert to interested parties
does not establish an attorney-client relationship.
The views expressed herein are solely the views
of the authors and do not represent the views of
Brown Rudnick LLP, those parties represented
by the authors, or those parties represented by
P r i o r re s u l t s d o n o t g u a r a n t e e a s i m i l a r o u t c o m e .
Haloperidol Dose When Used as Active Comparator in Randomized Controlled Trials With Atypical Antipsychotics in Schizophrenia: Comparison With Officially Recommended Doses Gerard W. K. Hugenholtz, Pharm.D., Ph.D.; Eibert R. Heerdink, Ph.D.; Joost J. Stolker, M.D., Ph.D.; Welmoed E. E. Meijer, Ph.D.; Antoine C. G. Egberts, Pharm.D., Ph.D.; and Willem A. Nolen, M.D., Ph.D. Con
ESTUDO DO EFEITO DO USO DO EGB 761 (EXTRATO DE GINKGO BILOBA) SOBRE A QUALIDADE DE VIDA EM PACIENTES ASMÁTICOS SUBMETIDOS A TRATAMENTO DE MANUTENCÃO* STUDY OF THE EFFECT OF GBE (GINKGO BILOBA EXTRACT) USE ON THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF ASMATHIC PATIENTS SUBMITTED TO TREATMENT OF MAINTANANCE Marinez Domeneghini Hillebrand1 e Walter Ferreira Oliveira *Artigo científico extraído