Paralegal Brief

Eli Lilly, Novartis Could Pump Close To $3B Into AI Drug Tech

Law 360

JANUARY 8, 2024

Eli Lilly & Co. and Novartis could invest close to $3 billion in the development of artificial intelligence for drug discovery under two new agreements with a digital biology company owned by Google's parent company.

Eli Lilly Inks Insulin Pricing Deal Worth Upwards Of $500M

Law 360

MAY 26, 2023

Insulin buyers asked a New Jersey federal judge Friday to greenlight a settlement with Eli Lilly & Co. that would resolve their class claims that the pharmaceutical company schemed to drive up insulin drug prices, in a deal the plaintiffs say could be worth more than $500 million over four years.

Ex-Eli Lilly Worker Settles Whistleblower Suit

Law 360

OCTOBER 4, 2023

A former associate director of employee relations at Eli Lilly & Co. has reached a settlement with the pharmaceutical company on claims that she was fired in retaliation for reporting manufacturing issues with its cancer and diabetes treatments.

Manufacturing

Ex-Eli Lilly Worker Sues Over 'Serious' Manufacturing Issues

Law 360

JUNE 6, 2022

A former senior human resources employee at Eli Lilly & Co. claims she was fired after reporting manufacturing issues related to the pharmaceutical company's blockbuster diabetes treatment, including falsified batch data and missing regulatory protocols, according to a lawsuit filed Monday in New Jersey federal court.

Manufacturing

Manufacturing Human Resources Court

New Intelligize Report Delves into Non-GAAP Measures Influencing Exec Comp

Intelligize Blog

JANUARY 9, 2024

Namely, rank-and-file workers decried the hefty pay packages doled out to C-suite occupants, while executives fired back with arguments that their performance and value to their companies justified their compensation. Importantly, the rule carves out space for a company-selected measure, which may include non-GAAP performance measures.

Entertainment

SEC Axes Eli Lilly Bid To Duck Diversity, Abortion Reports

Law 360

MARCH 15, 2023

Eli Lilly & Co. cannot dodge a pair of shareholder proposals seeking reports on the pharmaceutical company's diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and its views on abortion, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission said last week.

Doctrine of Equivalents in Lilly v. Apotex

Patently O

DECEMBER 21, 2020

Eli Lilly and Co v. Lilly’s US7772209 claims a particular treatment scheme for pemetrexed disodium that includes a pre-treatment with folic-acid to avoid the harsh side-effects. However, one original claim had limited the antifolate to “ALIMTA,” which is Lilly’s brand of Pemetrexed Disodium.

Manufacturing

Manufacturing Construction Court

Where’s Waldo: Global Discovery and Finding a Corporation

Patently O

OCTOBER 5, 2022

Courts to obtain discovery in order to facilitate foreign litigation; with the pending global litigation between Eli Lilly and Novartis serving as our key example. One quirk is that the Novartis patents were not developed alongside the company’s Cosentyx product. In 2021, Lilly brought the case to the U.S.

Litigation

Litigation Litigating Statute Court

Surely You Must be Kidding, PTO?!? “No, and Don’t Call Me Shirley!” – The Seemingly Slapstick (But Yet Unfunny) World of Recent Patent Term Extension Decisions (PART 2)

FDA Law Blog

FEBRUARY 29, 2024

Drug companies are still required to conduct studies to confirm the anticipated clinical benefit. On April 14, 2023, the PTO issued an ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE to Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”) “based on the apparent ineligibility of U.S. Consider, for example, the following four PTO decisions we unearthed.

Statute

Statute Laws

Update on the 340B Contract Pharmacy Showdown: Judge Rules HRSA threat of enforcement is consistent with the 340B statute and the Constitution, but is arbitrary and capricious under the APA

FDA Law Blog

NOVEMBER 7, 2021

District Court for the Southern District of Indiana decided several substantive motions in Eli Lilly & Co. Drug companies can claim vindication that HRSA’s threats of enforcement are arbitrary and capricious. Last week, the U.S. 1:21-cv-00081-SEB-MJD (S.D.

Statute

Statute Contract Manufacturing Court

PhRMA Sues Arkansas for Meddling in the Federal 340B Drug Discount Program

FDA Law Blog

OCTOBER 6, 2021

are diverting drugs purchased at low 340B prices to non-340B patients, the companies are declining to sell drugs to 340B covered entities that use multiple contract pharmacies. 12, 2021); Eli Lilly & Co. Because of concerns that these contract pharmacies, which include some of the largest chains in the U.S.,

Manufacturing

Manufacturing Contract Statute Court

When is the use of a product a “substantial noninfringing use” for purposes of Section 271(c)?

Patently O

DECEMBER 11, 2023

Assume also that the company selling the software doesn’t provide specific instructions on how to use the five features, thus taking potential liability outside the realm of § 271(b). Kelley Co. , On a related note, in Eli Lilly & Co. citing Eli Lilly and Co. 3d 1538 (Fed.

Technology

Technology Litigation Litigating Construction

Paralegal Brief

Eli Lilly, Novartis Could Pump Close To $3B Into AI Drug Tech

Eli Lilly Inks Insulin Pricing Deal Worth Upwards Of $500M

Trending Sources

Ex-Eli Lilly Worker Settles Whistleblower Suit

Ex-Eli Lilly Worker Sues Over 'Serious' Manufacturing Issues

New Intelligize Report Delves into Non-GAAP Measures Influencing Exec Comp

SEC Axes Eli Lilly Bid To Duck Diversity, Abortion Reports

Doctrine of Equivalents in Lilly v. Apotex

Where’s Waldo: Global Discovery and Finding a Corporation

Surely You Must be Kidding, PTO?!? “No, and Don’t Call Me Shirley!” – The Seemingly Slapstick (But Yet Unfunny) World of Recent Patent Term Extension Decisions (PART 2)

Update on the 340B Contract Pharmacy Showdown: Judge Rules HRSA threat of enforcement is consistent with the 340B statute and the Constitution, but is arbitrary and capricious under the APA

PhRMA Sues Arkansas for Meddling in the Federal 340B Drug Discount Program

When is the use of a product a “substantial noninfringing use” for purposes of Section 271(c)?

Stay Connected