1. “Legal Representation in Pharmaceutical Patent Cases”
2. “Successful Defense in Butamax v. Gevo Biofuel Patent Infringement Cases”
3. “Dupont’s Legal Representation in Invista Contract and Patent Disputes”
4. “Victory in ARIAD v. Eli Lilly Patent Infringement Lawsuit”
5. “Pfizer’s Successful Defense Against Teva Pharmaceuticals in ANDA Litigation”
6. “Hoffmann-La Roche’s Representation in Amgen v. Hoffmann-La Roche Patent Infringement Case”
7. “Successful Defense in Bayer CropScience v. Dow AgroSciences and Pioneer Hi-Bred International Patent Infringement Case”

In a series of high-stakes patent disputes, legal representatives have been battling it out in courtrooms across the country, defending the rights of pharmaceutical and biotech companies. These cases involve a range of medical treatments and technologies, from type-II diabetes and cancer treatments to biofuel production and crop protection.

In one such case, attorneys represented patentees in cases involving original patents on DPP-IV enzyme inhibitors for the treatment of type-II diabetes, and patents directed to anti-CD38 antibodies for the treatment of multiple myeloma and other cancers. These cases highlight the critical role of patent protection in fostering innovation in the pharmaceutical industry.

In another case, Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC was represented against plaintiff Gevo, Inc.’s claims that Butamax infringed a patent related to decarboxylase enzymes used in the production of biofuels. The attorney, Mr. Jagoe, successfully argued a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patent, effectively ending the case.

In a similar case, Butamax was again represented against Gevo, Inc.’s claims of patent infringement, this time related to iron regulation and transcription factors used in biofuel production. Once again, Mr. Jagoe successfully argued a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, ending the case in favor of Butamax.

In a different sector of the industry, Dupont was represented in a set of contract and patent disputes related to the manufacture and use of nylon and related polymers, in a case against Invista.

In a landmark case, ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, and The President and Fellows of Harvard College, were represented in their lawsuit against Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”). The lawsuit claimed infringement of their pioneering U.S. patent covering methods of treating human disease by regulating NF-kB cell-signaling activity. The jury ruled unanimously in favor of ARIAD et. al., finding the patent was valid and infringed by Lilly’s osteoporosis drug, Evista®, and septic shock drug, Xigris®. The jury awarded damages of approximately $65.2 million plus future damages on an ongoing basis through the patent expiration date in 2019.

In another case, Pfizer was represented against Teva Pharmaceuticals in an ANDA litigation where a federal court upheld the three main U.S. patents covering Celebrex, Pfizer’s selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) medicine used to treat pain and inflammation. The patents had been challenged by generic manufacturer Teva Pharmaceuticals USA. The district court ruled that the patents covering the active ingredient, pharmaceutical composition and method of use for Celebrex are valid, enforceable and infringed by the generic manufacturer’s product.

In a patent infringement action brought by Amgen, Hoffman La Roche was represented in a case relating to Roche’s new synthetic drug for treating anemia. The Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the district court’s ruling in favor of Amgen, and the two companies subsequently entered into a settlement agreement.

In the agricultural sector, Pioneer Hi-Bred International, a Dupont Company, was defended against plaintiff Bayer’s claims of infringement of several patents related to insect-resistant crops. The district court found the asserted patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The decision was later affirmed on appeal.

These cases underscore the importance of patent protection in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, where research and development costs are high, and the potential for profit relies heavily on the ability to protect intellectual property. They also highlight the crucial role of legal representation in navigating the complex landscape of patent law.