Eli Lilly and Co. v. Aradigm Corp.

Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly) (plaintiff) manufactured an insulin analog called lispro. Aradigm Corporation (defendant) specialized in products to deliver drugs through aerosol inhalation. In 1995 and 1996, Lilly and Aradigm held four meetings to discuss the possibility of a collaboration. In 1996, Lilly secured a patent on lispro. In 1999, Aradigm obtained a patent (the ‘477 patent) on a method for aerosol administration of lispro. Lilly brought suit against Aradigm in federal district court, seeking the recognition of two of Lilly’s scientists as joint inventors on the ‘477 patent. Lilly alleged that, during meetings with Aradigm scientists, Lilly’s scientists had conveyed information about the advantages of lispro over insulin as an inhaled drug. A jury instruction asked if Lilly had proven—by clear and convincing evidence—that the two scientists had contributed to the invention claimed by the ‘477 patent. The jury found that one of the scientists, DiMarchi, had made an inventive contribution sufficient to merit joint-inventor status. However, although DiMarchi testified that he had mentioned insulin during the 1995-96 meetings, he did not testify that he had communicated the properties of lispro in relation to aerosol inhalation to Aradigm’s scientists and thereby aided the conception of Aradigm’s invention. Nevertheless, the court entered judgment in favor of Lilly. Aradigm appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support a jury verdict. Lilly countered that the applicable standard of proof should have been the lower preponderance-of-the-evidence standard, as in an interference proceeding.