Jury Awards Ariad Damages in Lilly Patent Dispute
I just had to write something about this, but rational thought escapes me. I’m flabbergasted by the jury’s decision in this case. It just makes no sense to me. If it makes sense to one of you, please do let the world know your reasoning. I’d have loved to hear the jury’s deliberations. I wish I could say I was confident the decision would be overturned on appeal, but I have no such confidence. The ruling will give reason for other companies to pursue royalties for drug products they “invented” after the innovator’s product was already in late clinical trials…unbelievable.
More on this topic
(What's this?)
Do It Yourself Patents
(Think in Trading, 6/20/09)
Patent & Trademark Institute of America
(Think in Trading, 6/10/09)
Patent Pools are Bad For You: Tragedy of the Anti-Anti-Commons
(Paul Kedrosky's Infectious Greed, 6/8/09)
Cree (CREE) and Bridgelux Resolve LED Lighting Patent Dispute
(Green Stocks Central, 12/30/08)
July 11th, 2007 at 3:29 pm
[...] I’ve been following along with the circus that is Ariad v Lilly for over a year now (see 2006 posts May 5, June 28, June 6), and, as I find it fascinating, I’m going to keep writing about it. If patent decisions bore you, read no further. The latest news is significant: Ariad has prevailed in a bench trial held in Massachusetts federal court. The prior jury award, giving Ariad entitlement to 2.3% of revenues from sales of Xigris and Evista (valued at ~$65 million at the time of the award), stands for now. Lilly has not yet commented on the Court’s decision. At the same time Ariad was getting this bit of good news, they received word from the USPTO that the patent claims upheld by the Massachusetts Court were nullified for now. Ariad will appeal the USPTO decision, which will take one to two years to be finally decided. In the meantime, the award against Lilly will stand unless appealed. [...]