Teva accused Eli Lilly of engaging in a $1 billion marketing expedition to establish Emgality as the superior migraine solution, overshadowing Teva’s innovation. Eli Lilly found themselves indebted to pay $176.5 million to Teva after the jury found them guilty of infringing Teva’s three patents willingly. The jury dismissed Eli Lilly’s defense regarding the invalidity of Teva’s patents.
The Verdict Overturn and its Aftermath:
In a twist of fate, Judge Burroughs ruled in favor of Eli Lilly, concluding that Teva’s patents were inadequate in describing a representative variety of antibodies. Eli Lilly dodged the bullet by proving the incapability of Teva’s patents to describe the invention sufficiently, marking them invalid due to lack of enablement and written description.
Yet, the judge denied Eli Lilly’s appeal on the future lost profits, a whopping $49.8 million, awarded to Teva by the jury. The jury’s decision on future lost profits remained unscathed as it was based on actual sales data and plausible projections, despite being substantially lesser than the expert’s calculation.
Unsettling Tides at the Patent Board:
To add to the intrigue, Eli Lilly secured notable victories at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, challenging more recent patents held by Teva for Ajovy, unrelated to last year’s court fracas in Boston. The court sided with Eli Lilly, finding that elements of the newer patents were already present in previous applications, combined with insights from a 2014 Lancet Neurology paper by researcher David Dodick from Mayo Clinic. A ruling on Eli Lilly’s challenge to a third new Teva patent is still awaited.
Eli Lilly $177M Migraine Drug : Epilogue
The tension remains palpable, and the combatants have retreated, yet the legal war seems far from over. The silence before the next legal storm is filled with anticipations and speculations, while the legal representatives prepare for the next chapter in this intellectual property saga.
Representations
Teva was represented by Goodwin Procter LLP, and Eli Lilly by Burns & Levinson LLP and Finnegan Henderson Farabow Garrett & Dunner LLP, with various associates and representatives engaged at the patent board.
