Corante

About this Author
DBL%20Hendrix%20small.png College chemistry, 1983

Derek Lowe The 2002 Model

Dbl%20new%20portrait%20B%26W.png After 10 years of blogging. . .

Derek Lowe, an Arkansan by birth, got his BA from Hendrix College and his PhD in organic chemistry from Duke before spending time in Germany on a Humboldt Fellowship on his post-doc. He's worked for several major pharmaceutical companies since 1989 on drug discovery projects against schizophrenia, Alzheimer's, diabetes, osteoporosis and other diseases. To contact Derek email him directly: derekb.lowe@gmail.com Twitter: Dereklowe

Chemistry and Drug Data: Drugbank
Emolecules
ChemSpider
Chempedia Lab
Synthetic Pages
Organic Chemistry Portal
PubChem
Not Voodoo
DailyMed
Druglib
Clinicaltrials.gov

Chemistry and Pharma Blogs:
Org Prep Daily
The Haystack
Kilomentor
A New Merck, Reviewed
Liberal Arts Chemistry
Electron Pusher
All Things Metathesis
C&E News Blogs
Chemiotics II
Chemical Space
Noel O'Blog
In Vivo Blog
Terra Sigilatta
BBSRC/Douglas Kell
ChemBark
Realizations in Biostatistics
Chemjobber
Pharmalot
ChemSpider Blog
Pharmagossip
Med-Chemist
Organic Chem - Education & Industry
Pharma Strategy Blog
No Name No Slogan
Practical Fragments
SimBioSys
The Curious Wavefunction
Natural Product Man
Fragment Literature
Chemistry World Blog
Synthetic Nature
Chemistry Blog
Synthesizing Ideas
Business|Bytes|Genes|Molecules
Eye on FDA
Chemical Forums
Depth-First
Symyx Blog
Sceptical Chymist
Lamentations on Chemistry
Computational Organic Chemistry
Mining Drugs
Henry Rzepa


Science Blogs and News:
Bad Science
The Loom
Uncertain Principles
Fierce Biotech
Blogs for Industry
Omics! Omics!
Young Female Scientist
Notional Slurry
Nobel Intent
SciTech Daily
Science Blog
FuturePundit
Aetiology
Gene Expression (I)
Gene Expression (II)
Sciencebase
Pharyngula
Adventures in Ethics and Science
Transterrestrial Musings
Slashdot Science
Cosmic Variance
Biology News Net


Medical Blogs
DB's Medical Rants
Science-Based Medicine
GruntDoc
Respectful Insolence
Diabetes Mine


Economics and Business
Marginal Revolution
The Volokh Conspiracy
Knowledge Problem


Politics / Current Events
Virginia Postrel
Instapundit
Belmont Club
Mickey Kaus


Belles Lettres
Uncouth Reflections
Arts and Letters Daily
In the Pipeline: Don't miss Derek Lowe's excellent commentary on drug discovery and the pharma industry in general at In the Pipeline

In the Pipeline

« Access to Phase I Drugs: A Constitutional Right? | Main | Yet Another Law »

May 4, 2006

Ariad Wins a Round

Email This Entry

Posted by Derek

Well, you'll no doubt have heard that Ariad won its case against Eli Lilly today. The jury found that Ariad's patent was valid, that Lilly had infringed it, and that Ariad was owed royalties, retroactively and in the future. This isn't the sort of case (or the sort of universe) where the jurors would get interviewed by Larry King and Oprah, but I would very much like to know what this jury knew, or believed that they knew, about intellectual property and cell biology. Ah well, at times like this, my wife reminds me that I thought that O.J. Simpson would be convicted, too.

I'll not rant; my position on this has been as clear as I can make it for some time. I hope that Ariad and its shareholders enjoy their victory while they can. Said shareholders should realize, though, that it's very unlikely that one dime will be coming to the company until several other legal proceedings finish up. First off, Lilly will appeal this verdict. Then there's the reexamination of Ariad's patent that Lilly requested. And there's another Lilly trial - a bench trial this time, no jury - on whether Ariad's patent is enforceable. And let's not forget Amgen's recently filed suit in Delaware.

I find it very unlikely that all of these will go Ariad's way, since at least three of them will be judged by people who know what they're talking about. In the meantime, I haven't covered the short position I spoke about the other day, even though I'm about $1500 to the bad right now. The stock didn't take off like a skyrocket today, and I think that the legal uncertainty around today's verdict will keep it from doing so over the next few months. I have time and collateral. Who knows, as things go on I might short some more, and I'll post it if I do. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, over to you.

Comments (30) + TrackBacks (0) | Category: Patents and IP


COMMENTS

1. Palo on May 4, 2006 9:51 PM writes...

at least three of them will be judged by people who know what they're talking about

Nothing like defeat to bring out cynicism about the glorious american justice system.

Disappointing, though, that you spared us the rant against MIT, Harvard and those ugly academics...

Permalink to Comment

2. Petros on May 5, 2006 1:54 AM writes...

I'm staggered that a case like this would even be considered by a jury. Like Derek anticpate that subsequent assessments of teh case are unlikely to find for Ariad

Permalink to Comment

3. Jonathan Gitlin on May 5, 2006 9:45 AM writes...

Nothing like defeat to bring out cynicism about the glorious american justice system.

Disappointing, though, that you spared us the rant against MIT, Harvard and those ugly academics...

Huh? I'm firmly ensconsed in an ivory tower, yet I'm quite able to see the problems of a scientificially illiterate jury deciding cases such as these, or indeed the Vioxx trials underway. Don't kid yourself that these people on the jury had the slightest idea about how NF-kappaB works.

And as an academic, I'm still baffled (and a little outraged) that it's even possible for someone to patent a naturally occuring pathway.

Permalink to Comment

4. TWAndrews on May 5, 2006 10:19 AM writes...

I wonder... If that guy... who always... shows up when you post! about Ariad will write something...! about how great!... Ariad is!?

All kidding aside, in response to Palo, I tihnk there are cases, particularly some torts, where a judge or panel of judges are more likely to end up finding their way to the just outcome based upon the law as it's written.

The jury system is essentially built to keep innocent people out of jail, a job it does fairly well, (though there are clearly
exceptions
) though at the expense of letting some fraction of guilty ones go free.

But it manifestly doesn't put people with the appropriate training and knowledge into the position of deciding complicated and completing claims. Regardless of one's position on Ariad vs. Lilly, it's would seem to be clear that the person on the street who by misfortune of having jury duty, and inability to convince the lawyers that they should be sent home, is unlikely to be equipped to accurately find the truth of Ariad's claim or the validity of their patent.

Permalink to Comment

5. Palo on May 5, 2006 11:14 AM writes...

hey, I said many times that I agree with most of the complaints about Ariad's patent, but:

you cannot whine about jurys' incompetence only when they go against your position, much less so when you don't have all the proceedings of the trial and then don't know what evidence was presented. It is quite pedantic to assume that if they don't buy your (or mine) argument against the patent, and they accepted Ariad's argument, that is because they are idiots. After all, the FDA also accepted Ariad's argument. And as much as I dislike the FDA, I wouldn't call them idiots. Other pharmaceutical companies also accepted Ariad's patents, and licensed from them. Again, I have no love for Bristol-Myers Squibb, but I don't think they could be so idiotic to license a bogus patent.

By the way, for an industry that makes billions marketing to the ignorance of the public that "will ask their doctor about Lunesta" simply because the butterfly in the ad looks, well, sooo relaxing... for Derek and pharma fans to complain about the stupidity of the general public that makes a jury is quite ironic.

To Jonathan Gitlin:

my reference to Academia had to do with how Derek framed the issue the first time he brought Ariad's trial: he complained about'deep pocket' universities and famous scientists going against poor pharma and how it was going to be presented in the media.

As for your:

And as an academic, I'm still baffled (and a little outraged) that it's even possible for someone to patent a naturally occuring pathway

Well, obviously that is not what they patented, and that is not what they contested. They patented potential methods to block NF-Kb targets, not the pathway. I would agree with you that it is a big stretch and I don't like it, but trivializing their claim is foolish.

Permalink to Comment

6. Derek Lowe on May 5, 2006 12:10 PM writes...

Palo, I think you mean the USPTO, not the FDA. Ariad has never, to my knowledge, submitted a compound for final FDA approval, and if they're spending their money on things like this it's not something I'd be expecting any time soon.

I think that, like many people who haven't been involved with many patent issues, you accord too much respect to the PTO for its approval of a given patent. I refer you to this gem, for a faster-than-light radio. That's an issued patent, with (it goes without saying) no reduction to practice, and in flat contradiction to some of the most well-accepted principles of physics. But it's an issued patent. The PTO bought this guy's arguments, too. There are many, many more examples of this kind of thing. All kinds of garbage issues, sad to say.

As for other companies licensing Ariad's patent, that also says depressingly little about its validity. People do indeed pay up for bogus patents, if they think it would cost them even more to invalidate them. I think that BMS must have licensed Ariad's patent just to make Ariad go away. An example from the past: there was a guy some years back claiming a patent right to every assay that was run in living cells, and a couple of pharma companies paid him to go away, too - but others took him to court and invalidated his patent. My brain is telling me that BMS was one of the companies that paid that bozo, too, but I'm not sure if that's right.

And as for only complaining about jury results when they disagree with my own opinions, well, that's what one could expect. After all, I try (not always successfully) to hold opinions that I think are backed up by valid reasons. So when a jury disagrees with me, odds are they're disagreeing with me on something that I have at least some reason for believing.

Permalink to Comment

7. SRC on May 5, 2006 12:39 PM writes...

Nothing like defeat to bring out cynicism about the glorious american justice system.
Cheap shot. One can support the system without signing on to each and every decision it makes.
you cannot whine about jurys' incompetence only when they go against your position, . . .
Of course one can whine about a particular jury's incompetence. In a speech at a local ACS meeting a district court judge once said the average federal juror has an eleventh grade education. You can bet your boots that Ariad's counsel did its best to make sure that no one with any relevant background was on that jury (which is also why, of course, Ariad demanded a jury in the first place). Take as jurors eight Boston laymen with little or no knowledge, add two Nobel Laureate inventors, season with the cachet of Harvard and MIT, stir in antipathy for a big pharma based far away, and voila! A lousy decision that is an excellent bet to be reversed and remanded by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
. . . much less so when you don't have all the proceedings of the trial and then don't know what evidence was presented.
For my entertainment/sins, I have read all of the publicly available evidence. Among other nuggets, Lilly argued that sunlight and red wine each affects the NF-kappaB pathway, as does estrogen administered to post-menopausal women. So their argument - and it is a compelling one - was that people have long been practicing the claimed method of regulating NF-kappaB activity, even though they didn't know it. (Cue the history of aspirin here.) Finding out the mechanism of action of a known therapy makes for a great paper but not for a valid patent.
It is quite pedantic to assume that if they don't buy your (or mine) argument against the patent, and they accepted Ariad's argument, that is because they are idiots.
No, it's not. It's a simple judgment based on the facts presented, much like concluding the O.J. Simpson jury were idiots (and/or prejudiced). This lot had more excuse, given the technical complexity of the central issue, but not that much more.
After all, the FDA also accepted Ariad's argument.
Huh?? The FDA has nothing to do with this, Palo. Zip. Nada. FDA approved Lilly's accused products (Evista, Xigris), but FDA has nothing to do with the Ariad patent (which in any case issued after Evista and Xigris were approved). Permalink to Comment

8. Palo on May 5, 2006 2:19 PM writes...

Derek, yes, indeed I was thinking patent office when I said FDA. Sorry about that.

My point about complaining when a jury doesn't go for your argument had less to do with your right to think you were correct than with the somewhat arrogant stance of considering that whoever doesn't think you are correct is an ignorant idiot.

I never meant to suggest the PTO or BMS licensing proves Ariad is right. Again, I am not on Ariad's side myself. I'm only pointing out that oversimplification of their claims as bogus is really not a good argument. Like this:

Lilly argued that sunlight and red wine each affects the NF-kappaB pathway, as does estrogen administered to post-menopausal women. So their argument - and it is a compelling one - was that people have long been practicing the claimed method of regulating NF-kappaB activity, even though they didn't know it.

Well, obviously it wasn't that compelling to a lot of people. Once again, this simplified argument doesn't go to the core issue, at least for a bunch of people with power ('idiots' in the jury or 'non idiots but lacking respect' of the PTO). The fact that a lot of people "have long been practicing the claimed method of regulating NF-kappaB activity", as SRC says, doesn't mean that if Eli Lilly develops drugs using the knowledge, ideas and methods that Baltimore and Sharp developed, they can ignore their patents. I doubt any Jury would find in Ariad's favor if it sues whoever is out there treating disease with red wine. But that is obviously not the kind of claim they were deciding here.

And again, before you jump on me, I'm not a defender of merits of the patent. My point is things are not as simple as presented by some people here. My suspicion is that if the basic research on the NF-kB pathway was entirely developed by Bayer, or Merck, or etc., they would have tried to patent all the potential work products of those findings. And you can hear the arguments: 'We invested millions in the basic research to understand this pathway that will result in wonderful drugs to treat disease", "if cannot recoup the costs of such investments we have no incentive to bring more of this innovative research that leads to great benefits to the public", "We're trying to create value for the scientists and shareholders who took a risk early on to invest in this work" (actual quote)
la la la la la. Am I very far off? Would any of you say that no big pharmaceutical company would do that? Only tiny Ariad?

Permalink to Comment

9. Chrispy on May 5, 2006 2:40 PM writes...

I have yet to meet any scientist who thought this patent was anything more than BS.

If U. Rochester's COX-2 IP position was overturned, surely this one will be, too. The key with these patents seems to be not to get too greedy. Once it becomes more cost effective to overturn the patent than pay your extortion, you're gone.

Actually, Ariad's looking like a pretty good short right now...

Permalink to Comment

10. DLIB on May 5, 2006 3:03 PM writes...

Well, the Court of Appeals for the federal Circuit issued a precedent that I thought was fairly instructive a few years ago. It admonished the lawyers in biotech patent disputes for using so much "Gobbledygook" in their language.

I'm for professional juries. I think the UC v. Genentech case was interesting and argues for this too ( based on jury comments after the case).

People that make their livlihood as a professional juror could give much needed evenhandedness (Civil/Criminal and state/federal can be debated but I think definitely for patents) so that Lilly gets a fair shake regardless of the district.

As for patents, the true value is always the court test. Although there are many silly patents out there most won't see the light of a courtroom so they'll remain. It's true that the examiners are not that great ( on technical issues I've had better experience with th EU ). I think a lot of these kinds of cases are won and lost in the Markman hearings. Once you see the transcripts from that, you have a good idea of the power of the arguments.

Permalink to Comment

11. SRC on May 5, 2006 4:28 PM writes...

The fact that a lot of people "have long been practicing the claimed method of regulating NF-kappaB activity", as SRC says, doesn't mean that if Eli Lilly develops drugs using the knowledge, ideas and methods that Baltimore and Sharp developed, they can ignore their patents.

Sigh. Where to start...

First, for the record, Lilly invented Evista and Xigris long before NF-kappaB had been discovered; they didn't use Baltimore and Sharp's work to do so (but whether they did or not is beside the point - see below).

Second, and more fundamentally, the claims are directed to methods of regulating NF-kappaB activity. That's all that's protected - nothing more, nothing less. Other knowledge, ideas, methods developed by Baltimore and Sharp are totally irrelevant to whether Lilly infringes. Anything not in the claims is in the public domain, and anyone can use it without infringing. Surely that's obvious, isn't it?

Let's make it simple.

I claim a method of warding off chills by warming a room.

Someone invents a thermostat controlling a furnace and I sue him, saying he's inducing others to infringe by warming rooms.

He argues that others have long been warming rooms for warding off chills and other purposes, and that therefore what I claimed was not novel.

Jury decides that I win. Good decision?

Permalink to Comment

12. Palo on May 5, 2006 5:34 PM writes...

SRC,

Sigh. Where to start...

the claims are directed to methods of regulating NF-kappaB activity. That's all that's protected - nothing more, nothing less.

nothing more, nothing less!!??

Or, maybe you meant that their claim to patent did not cover other targets? In that case, maybe a, 'sigh, where to start place' would be the patent application. You could find:

9. A method for reducing, in eukaryotic cells, the level of expression of genes which are activated by extracellular influences which induce NF-.kappa.B-mediated intracellular signaling, the method comprising reducing NF-.kappa.B activity in the cells such that expression of said genes is reduced.

Again, your examples are trivial, that doesn't make Ariad's trivial.

Now, you not only claim the content of the patent is bogus, albeit unconvincingly, you also claim that the patent claim was filed after Lilly produced its drugs (a double bogus case!). I'm not an expert in patents. I have no knowledge on how the timing of the application and award of the patent intersects with the timing of Eli Lilly's drug development. But I suspect your trivial example has to be slightly misleading, otherwise we really have to believe that Judge and Jury members are all a bunch of idiots, which, all said, I guess is possible.

Permalink to Comment

13. Dave on May 5, 2006 5:46 PM writes...

Nice analogy SRC.

Ariad will go down in the end if for no other reason than that the collective opposing legal council is more than a match for their team.

Permalink to Comment

14. Palo on May 5, 2006 5:52 PM writes...

In the last point that SRC raised, I meant to be skeptical not of the timing the drug that makes Evista was discovered or patented, but the time when the use of the drug that makes Evista was applied to an NF-kB related disease.

Permalink to Comment

15. Derek Lowe on May 5, 2006 6:04 PM writes...

Palo, Evista (raloxifene) was developed because of its effects on the estrogen receptor. Lilly thought that an estrogen ligand that didn't full-on or full-off the receptor might have beneficial effects on osteroporosis and other diseases, without giving the full estrogen profile.

After NF-kB was discovered, its role in a very wide variety of cell pathways was gradually worked out. Some of these do indeed cross over with pathways that are regulated by (among other things) the estrogen receptor, but I strongly doubt that Evista could be said to work solely through these. Hitting a steroid receptor generally is a guarantee of modulating the expression of dozens, hundreds, perhaps even thousands of genes.

So it's not a case of Evista coming on the market and then being applied to an NF-kB related disease. It's a case of the drug being developed against estrogen receptor signaling for osteoporosis and coming on the market for that purpose. Meanwhile, as soon as Ariad's patent issues, they decide to sue Lilly as a test case because they have two drugs whose mechanisms, at some point, could cross NF-kB pathways. (As do dozens, hundreds of others - it's probably impossible to do anything with inflammation, immunity, or cell death without wandering into something, at some point, that's regulated through NF-kB signaling).

I don't know if there are any diseases that are pure NF-kB. But there are any number that impinge, brush against, partly flow through or interact with it. Ariad wants them all - a piece of every drug that so much as touches any of them. And the Rochester/COX-2 precedent clearly (to me) says that that is over-reaching.

Permalink to Comment

16. SRC on May 5, 2006 6:57 PM writes...

In the last point that SRC raised, I meant to be skeptical not of the timing the drug that makes Evista was discovered or patented, but the time when the use of the drug that makes Evista was applied to an NF-kB related disease.

The point has proven elusive again. Once Lilly administered raloxifene to the first patient (strictly speaking, the first eukaryotic cell) they were practicing the invention of the Ariad patent - before Baltimore & Co. had invented it.

The fact that, thanks to Baltimore et al., we now appreciate how raloxifene/Evista works is nice, but irrelevant. Raloxifene worked as well before we knew about NF-kappaB as it works now. Raloxifene's NF-kappaB activity, such as it is, is inherent in the compound, and its use predates Ariad's patent application by approximately 20 years. That, in a sentence, is Lilly's argument, and I think to anyone with an opposable thumb, it's a crushing one.

To your other points:

The patent in question claims no targets (i.e., compositions) whatever, only methods.

US 4,133,814, the patent covering raloxifene (the active constituent of Evista) was filed in 1976.

Ariad's patent (i.e., the one they licensed) was filed in 1995.

Draw your own conclusions.

Permalink to Comment

17. Tim's Brother on May 5, 2006 7:45 PM writes...

This link on the Biocarta website is a very simplified schematic of the NF-kB signaling pathway.

http://biocarta.com/pathfiles/h_nfkbPathway.asp

It is evident that NFkB touches on many cellular pathways and processes. But the notion that one can discover and patent one component of this pathway and proposing that using any other component (receptor, kinase, proteasome) of the pathway as a drug target infringes on the patent seems ludicrous.

Look at the issue in a different way: If the investigators who discovered the various IKK’s that phosphorylated IKBa have a valid patent on their discovery, and those who discovered the various proteins involved in the ubiquitin cascade that tags IKBa for degradation have a valid patent their discovery, and those discovered the 26s proteasome that degrades IKBa and “frees” NFkB have a valid patent on their discovery, and those who discovered the components of the nuclear pore that regulate the trafficking of NFkB into the nucleus have a valid patent their discovery… well, that would be the end of drug discovery. Who would bother to do anything? Certainly not Ariad, as they couldn’t afford the legal costs.

It's not a legal arguement, but it illustrates the problem the industry will face if this holds up.

Permalink to Comment

18. Palo on May 7, 2006 8:54 PM writes...

I'm still skeptical about SRC black & white world where everything related to the Ariad vs. Eli Lilly case is so simple that the judge and 12 jury members that unanimously found in Ariad's favor, and anyone who doesn't buy SRC's arguments really, are morons, less than morons even, sub-human (or even sub-primate).

SRC says:

Raloxifene worked as well before we knew about NF-kappaB as it works now. Raloxifene's NF-kappaB activity, such as it is, is inherent in the compound, and its use predates Ariad's patent application by approximately 20 years.
That, in a sentence, is Lilly's argument, and I think to anyone with an opposable thumb, it's a crushing one.

So, one wonders why Eli Lilly applied in 1996 for an international patent for Raloxifene curiously titled "Methods of Modulating NF-kB Transcription factor" (PCT/US96/10260), when, according to Lilly and SRC, it didn't need to. AFter all, if Raloxifene original patent was (and it seems uncontested) unrelated to NF-kB, why did Lilly need to base this patent on the NF-kB pathway? And apparently, the same is true for Xigris. It might still be the case that in the particular point under this trial, Lilly might be right that Evista y Xigris 'knew' nothing about NF-kB. I don't know, because I couldn't find the actual trial transcripts to see exactly what Ariad claims and how it was argued, but you can safely bet that Ariad lawyers used the fact that Lilly was attempting to patent a new use of Xigris in treating patients who suffer from a disease induced by NF-kB, and Lilly's patent claims involving the use of Evista to modulate NF-kB to undermine the apparent 'bogus' approach that SRC says is patently obvious to anyone with a normal size brain.

So, the patent itself might be a terrible one. But there's plenty of room to think that the 13 people involved in the trial (who were not charged with judging the validity of the patent but whether the patent, as awarded, was violated by Lilly) acted rationally, and are not necessarily the morons Derek and SRC led us to believe.

Permalink to Comment

19. JT on May 7, 2006 10:10 PM writes...

I pitty anyone who is short in this stock for the next 10 working days....

The real question for Derek, is why would you invest (especially short) in a stock you are already emotionally involved in? You might know your crap about biotech and patents, but that was a bad investment decision to say the least.

But who knows.. maybe you are the kind of person to go all in on a pair of 2's before the flop?

Permalink to Comment

20. SRC on May 8, 2006 12:34 PM writes...

So, one wonders why Eli Lilly applied in 1996 for an international patent for Raloxifene curiously titled "Methods of Modulating NF-kB Transcription factor" (PCT/US96/10260), when, according to Lilly and SRC, it didn't need to. AFter all, if Raloxifene original patent was (and it seems uncontested) unrelated to NF-kB, why did Lilly need to base this patent on the NF-kB pathway?

Palo, you need to be more precise in your language; failure to do so is partly responsible for your confusion. Lilly didn't apply for an international patent for raloxifene in 1996, but for methods of using it to affect NF-kappaB ("Methods of Modulating NF-kB Transcription factor"). Big difference.

Why would Lilly apply for this patent? Simple. Defensive purposes. It would be imprudent not to do that, once one realizes the mechanism of action involves NF-kappaB. Note that this application was filed 6/6/96, 20 years after the one to raoxifene itself, and before they could have known of the existence of the Harvard/MIT application (which had not been published at that point). If they hadn't filed this application, someone else could potentially have patented a use of their own compound, and prevented them from including it as a labelled indication.

Should it have been patentable to Lilly? No, I don't think so, for the same reasons set out previously. But if I were in Lilly, I'd have done the same thing, on the reasoning that if the PTO finds it patentable to anyone, let's make sure it's us. Note that if the Lilly application had predated the Harvard/MIT application, this strategy would have obviated the present litigation, proving the value of this approach.

but you can safely bet that Ariad lawyers used the fact that Lilly was attempting to patent a new use of Xigris in treating patients who suffer from a disease induced by NF-kB, and Lilly's patent claims involving the use of Evista to modulate NF-kB to undermine the apparent 'bogus' approach that SRC says is patently obvious to anyone with a normal size brain.

Nope.

But there's plenty of room to think that the 13 people involved in the trial (who were not charged with judging the validity of the patent but whether the patent, as awarded, was violated by Lilly) acted rationally, and are not necessarily the morons Derek and SRC led us to believe.
Palo, validity was (among other things) exactly what they were charged with determining.

Question 5 of the jury verdict form: Are one or more of the asserted claims of the '516 patent invalid because the claimed process was anticipated by prior public use?

Question 6: Are one or more of the asserted claims of the `516 patent invalid for failing to satisfy the enablement requirement?

Question 7: Are one or more of the asserted claims of the `516 patent invalid for failing to satisfy the written description requirement?

Permalink to Comment

21. Palo on May 8, 2006 4:14 PM writes...

SRC,

you seem to have access to the trial documents, something I don't. Can you provide them?

Your point about uses of raloxifene instead of the compound itself in the 1996 patent (which was obvious from the title of the patent) doesn't change anything regarding what the jury might find or not regarding infringing the NF-kB patents. I'd like to see the trial transcrippts to see if didn't play any part in it as you claim.

your questions 5,6, 7 relate to whether the patent applies to this case (Of course, any trial dealing with infringing a patent deals with the validity of that patent in the particular case... that is trivial), not to the larger point of whether it is a 'valid' (as in fair) patent as approved by PTO, which is the point I was trying to make (maybe not clearly) and was the point of the original post when refering to the Lilly appeal for a PTO revision just before trial. This trial had nothing to do with whether it is a good or fair patent.

In any case, I find curious that in this and previous posts you make so much of the patent being simply about methods, like that in any way undermines Ariad claims. I thought that in fact was the essence of their claims...

Permalink to Comment

22. Palo on May 8, 2006 4:15 PM writes...

SRC,

you seem to have access to the trial documents, something I don't. Can you provide them?

Your point about uses of raloxifene instead of the compound itself in the 1996 patent (which was obvious from the title of the patent) doesn't change anything regarding what the jury might find or not regarding infringing the NF-kB patents. I'd like to see the trial transcrippts to see if didn't play any part in it as you claim.

your questions 5,6, 7 relate to whether the patent applies to this case (Of course, any trial dealing with infringing a patent deals with the validity of that patent in the particular case... that is trivial), not to the larger point of whether it is a 'valid' (as in fair) patent as approved by PTO, which is the point I was trying to make (maybe not clearly) and was the point of the original post when refering to the Lilly appeal for a PTO revision just before trial. This trial had nothing to do with whether it is a good or fair patent.

In any case, I find curious that in this and previous posts you make so much of the patent being simply about methods, like that in any way undermines Ariad claims. I thought that in fact was the essence of their claims...

Permalink to Comment

23. SRC on May 8, 2006 5:35 PM writes...

Palo,

Thank you for questioning my integrity, which you were quite right to do. I'm a well-known liar.


Valid to the rest of us means "conforms to the statutory requirements for patentability." Valid doesn't mean "appeals to Palo's sense of fairness, or goodness."


I make a point of distinguishing claims to methods as opposed to those directed to compositions not because it undermines Ariad's claims, but because that difference is fundamental to understanding the case here.


In any case, while I enjoy Lewis Carroll's writings as much as anyone, this somewhat less literate version is growing tiresome, and I decline to participate further.


Permalink to Comment

24. Palo on May 8, 2006 7:55 PM writes...

SRC,

where did I call you a liar?
I have to say I'm a bit mortified because if that came accross in any way in my post, rest assured that it was not my intention at all.

(If you refer to the first paragraph.... I honestly thought you did find somewhere the trial documents and transcripts, something I've been trying to find, and I honestly was asking you where to find them...)

Permalink to Comment

25. Petros on May 9, 2006 2:33 AM writes...

There seems to be some ignorance here of the fact that the parent application licensed to Ariad, as a PCT, was in the public domain from 1989. Thus Lilly's 1996 filing was a defensive measure.

However, it should be noted that Patent Offices other than the USPTO only allowed a very restricted set of claims rather than the very broad claims of the original application

Permalink to Comment

26. Dave on May 9, 2006 7:27 PM writes...

Another week and ARIA will be worth less than it was prior to the court's decision.

Permalink to Comment

27. Dave on May 11, 2006 10:21 PM writes...

Hey JT, ARIA closed at $5.50/share today.

Care to retract your statement concerning the wisdom of selling this junk stock short?

Permalink to Comment

28. JT on May 14, 2006 12:15 AM writes...

Dave,
The current price of the stock aside...

The stock was already valued at 7$ based on the assumption that ARIAD would lose when Lowe made his shorting comment.

Why would you short something before a verdict, when it was already at its price target. That is just a bad bet, but hey if you have money to lose, go for it. I admit, Lowe never said he knew anything about investing which he admits.

This week there is a BOA conference, and if BOA likes what they hear, they will make a market in this stock and they can take it up as high as they want to.

My point was, why risk shorting a stock like this based on what you think you know. Face it, Lowe was wrong in the first place saying Ariad would lose, his judgement was wrong in the second place to short the stock prior to the verdict. Anyone can pretend to be smart, anyone can be lucky - and shorts that covered on this stock are very very lucky but far from smart.

We'll see where it goes after this.

I could care less about Ariad - they have a lot in the pipeline and some promising things going into phase 3 soon, but they're not my type of investment - not yet anyway. Do I think this verdict will eventually be upheld? As far as Ariads stock goes, who cares!!! Ariad stands to get very little if anything from the award anyway even if it is upheld. It's a non issue as far as the stock price goes.

Permalink to Comment

29. Ron Tron on September 1, 2006 8:53 AM writes...

I can't believe how you so called "academics" can be so f........n errogant.
"A natural pathway" argument is mute..........when a writer copy writes a script every freaking word has been used before and theme has been expressed. Its not that its a natural pathway you bunch of putz's. Its how that pathway is applied to the protein in question. Very valid for a patent and yes a dumbass jury can figure that out.
The judges instructions to the jury secure the upholding of the verdict. Unless she rules that they ignored her instructions.
You guys smoke way to much pot.

Permalink to Comment

30. djmelfi on October 16, 2006 1:44 PM writes...

Ah!! The elite est ness of the academics, it is the job of the lawyers to explain to a reasonably intelligent jury what their case is. That's why our system works. It is decided on what can be reduced to english, not how fast your blood rushes or what your ethical moral and religious beliefs are. I suppose we would rather have jurisprudenced based on some esoteric basis the average ignorant juror cant understand. WHAT NONSENSE.

DJM

Permalink to Comment

POST A COMMENT




Remember Me?



EMAIL THIS ENTRY TO A FRIEND

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):




RELATED ENTRIES
Conference in Basel
Messed-Up Clinical Studies: A First-Hand Report
Pharma and Ebola
Lilly Steps In for AstraZeneca's Secretase Inhibitor
Update on Alnylam (And the Direction of Things to Come)
There Must Have Been Multiple Chances to Catch This
Weirdly, Tramadol Is Not a Natural Product After All
Thiola, Retrophin, Martin Shkrell, Reddit, and More