Battle of the Biologics: Lilly's IPRs Clear Six Teva Patents
Recent Publications
Federal Circuit Holds Prosecution History Disclaimer Applicable to Design Patents
by Sana Tahir, Law Clerk and Andrew Ollis, Partner








Headquartered within steps of the USPTO with an affiliate office in Tokyo, Oblon is one of the largest law firms in the United States focused exclusively on intellectual property law.

1968
Norman Oblon with Stanley Fisher and Marvin Spivak launched what was to become Oblon, McClelland, Maier & Neustadt, LLP, one of the nation's leading full-service intellectual property law firms.

Outside the US, we service companies based in Japan, France, Germany, Italy, Saudi Arabia, and farther corners of the world. Our culturally aware attorneys speak many languages, including Japanese, French, German, Mandarin, Korean, Russian, Arabic, Farsi, Chinese.

Oblon's professionals provide industry-leading IP legal services to many of the world's most admired innovators and brands.

From the minute you walk through our doors, you'll become a valuable part of a team that fosters a culture of innovation, client service and collegiality.

The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued final rules implementing the inventor's oath or declaration provisions of the America Invents Act (AIA) on August 14, 2012.
by Sana Tahir, Law Clerk and Andrew Ollis, Partner
by Andrew Ollis, Partner and Sana Tahir, Law Clerk



Several companies have received FDA approval for antagonist antibodies against calcitonin gene-related peptides. These so-called anti-CGRP biologic drugs are a relatively new type of injectable medication for preventing migraines without side effects.
Teva’s Ajovy® product received FDA approval in September, 2018, and shortly after that, Teva sued Eli Lilly based on the pending application for Lilly’s Emgality® product. The Court dismissed Teva’s lawsuits as premature because Lilly’s aBLA application had not yet been approved. Coincidentally, Lilly was granted approval later that same day, and Teva re-filed its lawsuits, asserting that nine of Teva’s patents are infringed by Lilly’s Emgality® product.
Teva’s patents are all fairly broad, and tend to cover the protein functionally, i.e., by binding location.
Lilly responded by filing IPRs against all nine of Teva’s patents. Notably, this approach could clear the way for other competitors as well (including at least Amgen with its Aimovig product, and Lundbeck with its Vyepti™ product), though as of now Teva has not filed suit against any other parties.
The PTAB instituted all nine IPRs:
|
IPR Trial Number |
Patent |
|
IPR2018-01422 |
9,340,614 |
|
IPR2018-01423 |
9,266,951 |
|
IPR2018-01424 |
9,346,881 |
|
IPR2018-01425 |
9,890,210 |
|
IPR2018-01426 |
9,890,211 |
|
IPR2018-01427 |
8,597,649 |
|
IPR2018-01710 |
8,586,045 |
|
IPR2018-01711 |
9,884,907 |
|
IPR2018-01712 |
9,884,908 |
The district court litigation has been stayed since April, 2019, pending outcome of the IPRs.
In late February, 2020, the first six IPRs were decided, with Lilly successfully canceling all challenged claims in each proceeding. The remaining three IPRs have yet to be decided, but rely on two of the same secondary references. Thus, it seems likely that Lilly will prevail there as well, meaning the asserted claims in all Teva’s asserted patents will be have been found unpatentable.
Statistically, biologic patents have proven harder to kill via IPR. Institution rates are generally somewhat slower than that for biotech/pharma patents in general. Similarly, the number of trials resulting in canceling all challenged claims is somewhat lower than that for other biotech/pharma patents. Thus, this is a significant achievement for Lilly. Emgality® generated $66 million in revenue in the fourth quarter of 2019, and now the threat of Teva’s infringement suit appears to be abated, opening the door for even more marketplace success.
by Sana Tahir, Law Clerk and Andrew Ollis, Partner
