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 .

Source: http://www.brownrudnick.com/uploads/117/doc/Brown_Rudnick_Ariad_Pharmaceuticals_v._Eli_Lilly_Meyers_Schoen_3-2010.pdf