Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 690 Filed 05/24/23 Page 1 of 4
`
`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 REPLY TO
`PLAINTIFFS’ RESPONSE TO NOTICE OF SUPPLEMENTAL AUTHORITY
`
`Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) hereby replies to Plaintiffs Teva Pharmaceuticals
`
`International GmbH and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.’s (collectively, “Teva”) response to the
`
`Notice of Supplemental Authority. ECF No. 689.
`
`Teva wrongly suggests that the Supreme Court’s Amgen decision bears no relevance to the
`
`Federal Circuit’s earlier decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, 872 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2017), which
`
`was discussed at length in the parties’ JMOL briefs. That the Federal Circuit’s 2017 Amgen
`
`decision was part of the non-linear proceedings that led to the appeal to the Supreme Court is clear
`
`from the Supreme Court’s express reference to it to describe the dispute:
`
`[O]ur dispute focuses on two additional patents Amgen obtained
`. . . . Amgen purported to claim for itself “the entire genus” of
`antibodies that (1) “bind to specific amino acid residues on
`PCSK9,” and (2) “block PCSK9 from binding to [LDL receptors].”
`Amgen, 872 F. 3d, at 1372.
`
`Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, No. 21-757 (“Slip Op.”) at 5 (emphasis added).1
`
`1 A court may also take judicial notice of a decision from another court, even if it is not cited in
`the record. White v. Gittens, 121 F.3d 803, 805 n.1 (1st Cir. 1997).
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 690 Filed 05/24/23 Page 2 of 4
`
`Nor were Lilly’s enablement arguments “cursory.” (ECF No. 689 at 1.) Lilly devoted
`
`sections in each JMOL brief to the issue (e.g., ECF No. 650 at 1-3, 23-25) and urged JMOL of
`
`non-enablement because Teva’s “specification discloses a mere ‘starting point, a direction for
`
`further research.’” Id. at 24. The Supreme Court deemed such “research assignments” deficient as
`
`they “leave a scientist about where Sawyer and Man left Edison: forced to engage in ‘painstaking
`
`experimentation’ to see what works. . . . That is not enablement.” Slip Op. at 17.
`
`Teva also wrongly asserts (at 1-2) that the Supreme Court’s decision does not support
`
`Lilly’s position, because the Federal Circuit found obvious other patents’ claims directed to the
`
`genus of antibodies encompassed by Teva’s claims here. But while the obviousness of a single
`
`species renders claims to the entire genus obvious, the Supreme Court unequivocally held that:
`
`If a patent claims an entire class of processes, machines,
`manufactures, or compositions of matter, the patent’s specification
`must enable a person skilled in the art to make and use the entire
`class. In other words, the specification must enable the full scope of
`the invention as defined by its claims. The more one claims, the
`more one must enable.
`
`Slip Op. at 13 (emphases added). Thus, Teva cannot skirt the requirements of § 112, offering a
`
`mere “hunting license” because rather than claiming compositions (antibodies) the Zeller patents
`
`claim processes (antibody treatments). Teva cannot escape repeated testimony from its witnesses
`
`that its claims cover the use of every humanized anti-CGRP antagonist antibody that works and
`
`that the only way to know if they work is to make, humanize, and test them. ECF No. 650 at 6, 12-
`
`13, 24. Nor can it escape the glaring similarities between the Zeller patents and those invalidated
`
`in Amgen. Like the Amgen patents, which seek to “monopolize . . . every antibody that both binds
`
`to . . . and blocks PCSK9” based on disclosure of a handful of antibodies that “perform these two
`
`functions” (Slip. Op. at 5, 16), the Zeller patents unlawfully claim use of every humanized antibody
`
`that binds to and blocks CGRP based on disclosure of only one such antibody (ECF No. 650 at 8).
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 690 Filed 05/24/23 Page 3 of 4
`
`Dated: May 24, 2023
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/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
`
`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 (BBO 708800)
`Li Zhang (BBO 708499)
`FINNEGAN, HENDERSON, FARABOW,
`GARRETT & DUNNER, LLP
`2 Seaport Lane
`Boston, MA 02210-2001
`Emily.Gabranski@finnegan.com
`Marta.Garcia@finnegan.com
`Li.Zhang@finnegan.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`Eli Lilly and Company
`
`William B. Raich
`Danielle A. Duszczyszyn
`Denise Main
`Pier D. DeRoo
`Matthew Luneack
`Yoonjin Lee
`Sydney R. 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
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 1:18-cv-12029-ADB Document 690 Filed 05/24/23 Page 4 of 4
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I, Andrea 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) on May 24, 2023.
`
`/s/Andrea L. Martin
`Andrea L. Martin, Esq.
`
`