Articles Posted in Patent Infringement

Figure-6_903-Patent-300x283Washington, D.C. — The Federal Circuit ruled on two patent infringement decisions, Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute v. Eli Lilly & Co. and Eli Lilly & Co. v. Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute, that involve Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Company.

These companion cases pertain to a pharmaceutical patent, U.S. Patent No. 8,133,903 (“the ’903 patent”), owned by Los Angeles Biomedical.  Also at issue is one prior art reference, International Patent Application No. WO 01/80860, published Nov. 1, 2001, common to both lawsuits.

Los Angeles Biomedical Research Institute v. Eli Lilly & Co. arose as an inter partes review of a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding all claims of the ‘903 patent to be obvious.  The Federal Circuit reviewed claims in a provisional application relating to a study involving rats in combination with a method in an uncited reference to convert those results to apply to humans.  It held that the rat study and uncited conversion method did not support the claimed dosage for humans.  It further concluded that claims directed to an underlying condition should not be construed broadly to treat symptoms of that condition, holding that the Board had not adopted the broadest reasonable interpretation of the claims but instead had adopted an overbroad interpretation. The panel remanding, stating:

The question remains whether a person of skill in the art would have had a reason to combine [the three cited references relating to the medical condition] and would have had a reasonable expectation of success from doing so.  Because the Board’s obviousness analysis was based on an erroneous construction of the claim language and an overly broad interpretation of [one of the references], and because the Board did not address the record evidence summarized above, we remand for the Board to make new findings as to whether there was an apparent reason to combine the prior art references and whether that combination would have rendered [the treatment] obvious.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – The matter of Eli Lilly and Company, et al. v. Apotex Inc., et al. has been stayed pending a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

This Indiana lawsuit was initiated by Lilly, an Indianapolis pharmaceutical company, in conjunction with other Plaintiffs.  Patent attorneys for Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit asserting patent infringement after Defendants filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking approval to market a generic version of the drug Axiron® before various patents related to the drug expired.  Among Plaintiffs’ contentions were claims of patent infringement of seven patents pertaining to Axiron.861-Patent_Fig-2-300x219

In this motion, patent lawyers for Plaintiffs have asked the court to stay its proceedings pending a ruling in a similar case, Eli Lilly and Company, et al. v. Perrigo Company, et al.  The Perrigo case was filed in the Southern District of Indiana in 2013.  After a trial, the court issued findings including that one claim in one of the Axiron patents was invalid, while two claims pertaining to another Axiron patent were valid.  That ruling was appealed to the Federal Circuit; that appeal remains pending.

LillyHeadquarters-300x127Indianapolis, Indiana – A patent lawyer for Eli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana, Eli Lilly Export S.A. of Geneva, Switzerland and Acrux DDS, Pty Ltd. of West Melbourne, Australia filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana.

Two Defendants are listed, TWi Pharmaceuticals, Inc. of Paramus, New Jersey and TWi Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. of Taipei, Taiwan.  In a 28-count complaint, Defendants are accused of infringing seven patents by filing an Abbreviated New Drug Application with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for approval of a generic version of the pharmaceutical product Axiron® before the expiration of the patents under which the drug is protected.  The patents at issue in this litigation are U.S. Patent Nos. 8,435,944; 8,993,520; 9,180,194; 8,419,307; 8,177,449; 8,807,861 and 9,289,586.

The counts against Defendants include “direct patent infringement,” “inducement to infringe” and “contributory infringement” as well as counts requesting declaratory judgment.  Lilly et al. are seeking declaratory relief, injunctive relief, costs and attorney fees.

Continue reading

Indianapolis, Indiana – The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has upheld the district court’s decision and ruled in favor of Eli Lilly regarding validity and infringement of the vitamin regimen patent U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 for Alimta® (pemetrexed for injection).

In the case of Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., et al., the court affirmed the earlier district court’s rulings that the vitamin regimen patent is valid and would be infringed by the generic challengers’ proposed products. If the patent is ultimately upheld through all remaining challenges, Alimta would maintain U.S. exclusivity until May 2022, preventing marketing of generic products for as long as the patent remains in force. The Alimta compound patent remLillyHeadquarters-300x127ains in force through January 24, 2017.

In March 2014, the U.S. Court for the Southern District of Indiana upheld the validity of the vitamin regimen patent. In August 2015, the same court ruled in Lilly’s favor regarding infringement of the vitamin regimen patent.

2016-12-29Indianapolis, IndianaEli Lilly and Company of Indianapolis, Indiana filed a lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana alleging patent infringement.

Defendant is Hospira, Inc. of Lake Forest, Illinois.  It has been accused of infringing U.S. Patent No. 7,772,209 (the “‘209 patent”) by the filing of a New Drug Application (“NDA”) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) seeking approval to manufacture and sell a pharmaceutical product, “Pemetrexed for Injection,” in various concentrations.  In its filing with the FDA, Hospira contended that the claims of Lilly’s patent are “invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed by the manufacture, use, offer for sale, or sale of Hospira’s NDA Products.”

Lilly contends that this product will compete with Alimta®, which also consists of the pharmaceutical chemical pemetrexed disodium.  Alimta is used as a chemotherapy agent to treat certain types of cancer.

Northern DistriUntitled-2-300x39ct of Indiana – The Beachwaver Co. of Libertyville, Illinois commenced intellectual property litigation in the Northern District of Indiana asserting infringement of patents pertaining to a rotating curling iron.

Defendant is T3 Micro, Inc. of Venice, California, which is accused of infringing Beachwaver’s U.S. Patent Nos. 9,398,796 (“the ‘796 patent”) and 9,504,301 (“the ‘301 patent”).  These patents have been issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Both patents are titled “Hair Styling Device.”  One of the two patents was the subject of at least one additional lawsuit in Indiana recently.  That lawsuit, filed in October, covered only the ‘796 patent but included counts for both direct and induced infringement.  In contrast, in this litigation, Indiana attorneys for Plaintiff list only one count of infringement for each of the two patents-in-suit:

South Bend, Indiana – Plaintiff Hawk Technology Systems, LLC of Miami, Florida filed a lawsuit in the Northern District of Indiana alleging patent infringement.

Hawk accuses Defendant Instant Auto Finance Inc. of South Bend, Indiana of infringing U.S. Patent No. RE43,462 (the “‘462 patent”), which is a reissue of U.S. Patent No. 5,265,410.  Claim 12 of the ‘462 patent, and possibly others, is at issue in this litigation.  That claim covers a method of simultaneously displaying and storing Untitled-3-300x154multiple video images.

In this complaint, filed by an Indiana patent attorney in conjunction with a lawyer from Minnesota, Hawk contends that Instant Auto Finance infringed the ‘462 patent by using a video storage and display system and/or methods that infringe one or more of the claims in the ‘462 patent.  Plaintiff seeks damages as well as reimbursement of costs and attorneys’ fees.

New Albany, Indiana – FireKing Security Products, LLC of New Albany, Indiana sued in the Southern District of Indiana alleging infringement of a patent related to smart safes.

Defendant in this litigation is American Security Products Company of Fontana, California.  Both Plaintiff and Defendant are in the business of manufacturing smart safes, which feature technology designed to count and log each deposit as it is made into the safe as well as generating and transmitting daily reports of the amount of cash stored in the safe.

American Security makes a line of smart safes offered under the name “CashWizard.”  FireKing asserts that these products infringe its patent for “Electronic Transmission and Tracking of Deposit Information,” which has been registered by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office as Patent No. 7,216,098 (the “’098 patent”).  FireKing asserts that it has multiple patents associated with its smart-safe products, including the ‘098 patent, which is the only patent at issue in this Indiana lawsuit.

Indianapolis, Indiana – Plaintiffs King Sheng Co., Ltd., which does business as Seiki, and David Tsai, both of Taiwan, initiated a patent infringement lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana.

Defendant in this Indiana litigation is Hollywood Engineering, Inc. d/b/a Hollywood Racks of Los Angeles, California.  It is accused of having infringed U.S. Patent No. 7,240,816 (“the ‘816 patent”), which relates to a bike rack for use on vehicles.  Plaintiffs contend that Defendant“has made, imports, sells, offers to sell, and/or uses” numerous infringing products.  The products at issue include items offered under model numbers HR200, HRT220, HR1000, HR1000R, HR1400, HR1450, HR1450E, HR1450R, HR1475, and Sunlite models 45815 and 45816.


Defendant is accused of having infringed the ‘816 patent directly and/or jointly with other entities, with the alleged infringement occuring literally and/or under the doctrine of equivalents.  Plaintiff further contends that Defendant is liable under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) for inducing infringement of the patent-in-suit and under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) for contributory infringement.  Stating that Defendant has had actual notice of the ‘816 patent since no later than 2009, Plaintiff also asserts that infringement of the ‘816 patent has been willful and deliberate.

Indianapolis, IndianaAlcon Research, Ltd. of Fort Worth, Texas and Alcon Pharmaceuticals Ltd. of Fribourg, Switzerland filed an intellectual property lawsuit in the Southern District of Indiana.  They assert infringement of two patents covering Pataday®, an ophthalmic pharmaceutical.  Pataday is covered by U.S. Patent Nos. 6,995,186 (the “‘186 patent”) and 7,402,609 (the “‘609 patent”).

Defendant Akorn, Inc., a generic drugmaker based in Lake Forest, Illinois, filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic version of Plaintiffs’ drug prior to the expiration of the two patents-in-suit.  Plaintiffs contend that the submission of this ANDA is an act of patent infringement.

In this Indiana complaint, patent lawyers for Alcon ask the court to adjudicate the following:

Contact Information