Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 587 Filed 11/07/22 Page 1 of 5
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
`
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
`
`INTERNATIONAL GMBH and
`TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 1:18-cv-12029-ADB
`
`ELI LILLY AND COMPANY’S OBJECTIONS TO FINAL JURY INSTRUCTIONS
`AND JURY VERDICT FORM
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 587 Filed 11/07/22 Page 2 of 5
`
`Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 51(c), and as stated on the record today, Defendant Eli Lilly
`
`and Company (“Lilly”) objects to the Court’s Final Jury Instructions and Jury Verdict Form as
`
`follows.
`
`1. “Invalidity – Written Description”
`
`Lilly objects to the instruction insofar as it does not include: (i) “evidence of an accused
`
`infringing product (e.g., Lilly’s Emgality®) is relevant for showing that a patent does not disclose
`
`a representative number of species,” and/or (ii) “a patent specification must disclose at least some
`
`species (i.e., antibodies) that are structurally similar to the accused infringing product (e.g., Lilly’s
`
`Emgality®).”
`
`E.g., ECF No. 523-3 at 13-14; AbbVie Deutschland GmbH & Co. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc., 759
`F.3d 1295, 1300-01 (Fed. Cir. 2014); Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367, 1374-75 (Fed. Cir.
`2017); Ariad Pharms. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
`
`2. “Invalidity – Written Description”
`
`Lilly objects to the instruction insofar as it does not include: “It is not sufficient if the
`
`specification discloses only enough to make it obvious for a person of ordinary skill to make or
`
`use the claimed invention.”
`
`E.g., ECF No. 523-3 at 12; Lockwood v. Am. Airlines, 107 F.3d 1565, 1571-72 (Fed. Cir. 1997);
`Martin v. Mayer, 823 F.2d 500, 505 (Fed. Cir. 1987); Ariad Pharms. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598
`F.3d 1336, 1352 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
`
`3. “Invalidity – Written Description”
`
`Lilly objects to the instruction insofar as it does not include: “An adequate written
`
`description of a claimed method of administering a compound (e.g., an antibody) requires an
`
`adequate description of the compounds suitable for practicing the claimed method.”
`
`E.g., ECF No. 523-3 at 13; Univ. of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 385 F.3d 916, 926 (Fed. Cir.
`2004); Ariad Pharms. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1352-53 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 587 Filed 11/07/22 Page 3 of 5
`
`4. “Invalidity – Written Description”
`
`Lilly objects to the instruction insofar as it does not include: “if a patent specification
`
`provides nothing more than the mere claim that the claimed invention might work, even though
`
`the patent owner has previously persuaded a court that a person of ordinary skill would not have
`
`thought it would work, the patent claim is invalid for lack of written description.”
`
`E.g., ECF No. 523-3 at 14; Nuvo Pharm. (Ir.) Designated Activity Co. v. Dr. Reddy’s Labs. Inc.,
`923 F.3d 1368, 1381 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
`
`5. “Invalidity – Enablement”
`
`Lilly objects to the instruction insofar as it does not include: (i) “if practicing the full scope
`
`of a patent claim would have required excessive experimentation, even if that experimentation was
`
`routine, the patent claim is invalid for lack of enablement” and/or (ii) “where the art is
`
`unpredictable, and trial and error testing is required to identify methods within the scope of a
`
`functionally defined claim for a vast array of possibilities encompassed by the claim, the claim is
`
`not enabled even if each individual experiment is routine.”
`
`E.g., ECF No. 523-3 at 15; Idenix Pharm. LLC v. Gilead Scis., Inc., 941 F.3d 1149, 1163 (Fed.
`Cir. 2019); Wyeth & Cordis Corp. v. Abbott Labs., 720 F.3d 1380, 1384 (Fed. Cir. 2013); Amgen
`Inc. v. Sanofi, 987 F.3d 1080, 1088 (Fed. Cir. 2021).
`
`6. “Invalidity – Written Description” and “Invalidity – Enablement”
`
`Lilly objects to the instruction insofar as it states that the filing date for purposes of
`
`assessing written description or enablement is November 2, 2006, rather than November 14, 2005.
`
`See, e.g., ECF No. 538; ECF No. 523-3 at 11-12; ECF No. 475; ECF No. 104; ECF No. 353; pre-
`AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(a)-(b); MPEP § 2163; Vasudevan Software, Inc. v. MicroStrategy, Inc., 782
`F.3d 671, 681-83 (Fed. Cir. 2015); Goeddel v. Sugano, 617 F.3d 1350, 1354 (Fed. Cir. 2010);
`Ariad Pharms. Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (en banc).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 587 Filed 11/07/22 Page 4 of 5
`
`7. “Future Lost Profits”
`
`Lilly objects to the instruction insofar as it includes any instruction on future lost profits
`
`damages because such damages are too speculative. Lilly also objects to the verdict form insofar
`
`as it includes any question on future lost profits damages.
`
`E.g., ECF No. 523-3 at 20; Shockley v. Arcan, Inc., 248 F.3d 1349, 1363-64 (Fed. Cir. 2001);
`Oiness v. Walgreen Co., 88 F.3d 1025, 1030 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Brooktree Corp. v. Advanced
`Micro Devices, Inc., 977 F.2d 1555, 1581 (Fed. Cir. 1992).
`
`Dated: November 7, 2022
`
` /s/ Andrea L. Martin
`Andrea L. Martin (BBO 666117)
`BURNS & LEVINSON LLP
`125 High Street
`Boston, MA 02110-1624
`(617) 345-3000
`amartin@burnslev.com
`
`William B. Raich
`Danielle A. Duszczyszyn
`Denise Main
`Pier D. DeRoo
`Matthew Luneack
`Yoonjin Lee
`Sydney Kestle
`J. Michael Jakes
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`901 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20001-4413
`William.Raich@finnegan.com
`Danielle.Duszczyszyn@finnegan.com
`Denise.Main@finnegan.com
`Pier.DeRoo@finnegan.com
`Matthew.Luneack@finnegan.com
`Yoonjin.Lee@finnegan.com
`Sydney.Kestle@finnegan.com
`Mike.Jakes@finnegan.com
`
`Charles E. Lipsey
`Ryan O’Quinn
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`1875 Explorer Street
`Suite 800
`Reston, VA 20190-6023
`Charles.Lipsey@finnegan.com
`Oquinnr@finnegan.com
`
`Emily R. Gabranski (BBO 694417)
`Marta Garcia Daneshvar
`Lulu Wang (BBO 704042)
`Li Zhang
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`2 Seaport Lane
`Boston, MA 02210-2001
`Emily.Gabranski@finnegan.com
`Marta.Garcia@finnegan.com
`Lulu.Wang@finnegan.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Eli Lilly and Company
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 587 Filed 11/07/22 Page 5 of 5
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Andrea L. Martin, hereby certify that this document filed through the ECF system will
`be sent electronically to the registered participants as identified on the Notice of Electronic Filing
`(NEF) and paper copies will be sent to those indicated as non-registered participants on
`November 7, 2022.
`
`/s/Andrea L. Martin
`Andrea L. Martin, Esq.
`
`4
`
`