Eli Lilly avoids sanctions in Teva migraine treatment dispute
Teva Pharmaceuticals has failed to persuade a federal judge in Massachusetts that Eli Lilly should be penalised over its discovery search related to a patent dispute concerning a migraine treatment.
A redacted version of District Judge Allison Burrough’s December ruling was published yesterday, January 11.
In the patent infringement suit, Israel-based Teva Pharmaceuticals alleged that Eli Lilly’s product Emgality, (galcanezumab), infringed Teva’s patents, US patent numbers, 8,586,045, 9,884,907, and 9,884,908.
The patents-in suit are related to a treatment for migraines that is marketed under the brand name Ajovy.
In August 2021, Teva moved to impose sanctions on Elli Lilly pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 37(b), arguing that sanctions were warranted because the plaintiff did not apply the proper search terms when collecting documents, which violated the court’s March 8, 2021 order.
But District Judge Allison Burroughs found that the March 8 Order responded to the dispute that was briefed and presented to the court, centring on whether Lilly must search for a particular term, “galca”,” which would encompass “galcanezumab”.
She surmised that because “the court never clearly adopted the position that Teva advanced, and without a clear finding on the definition of that term, it cannot be said that Lilly disregarded the court’s order”.
She concluded that as there was no violation of a court order, there were no grounds for imposing any sanctions against Eli Lilly.
In October, Eli Lilly also filed its own motion to exclude Geoffrey Hale as an expert in this litigation on behalf of Teva, arguing that must be disqualified because he had worked for Eli Lilly.
The company contended that it had enjoyed a “confidential relationship with him and during the course of that relationship provided him with privileged and confidential information that is relevant to this litigation”.
The court agreed, and Teva did not dispute that Eli Lilly and Hale entered into a confidential relationship.
In the alternative, Eli Lilly requested that the court prohibit Hale from disclosing Eli Lilly’s confidential material and protected work product pursuant to his signed engagement letters.
Consequently, Eli Lilly’s motion to exclude Hale was denied, but the court did order Hale not to disclose any of Eli Lilly's confidential information or work product to Teva.
Eli Lilly’s motion to amend its answer was also granted.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.
