Patent Case Watch

Patent opinions from the Eastern District of Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

E.D. Tex.

Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 2:15-cv-1202-WCB (E.D. Tex. Aug. 25, 2017)

Denied JMOL and new-trial motions denied — $20 million verdict stands
JMOL / Post-Trial Induced Infringement Enablement Written Description Damages
Court
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division
Case No.
No. 2:15-cv-1202-WCB
Decided
August 25, 2017
Judge
William C. Bryson, Circuit Judge (sitting by designation)
Document
Memorandum Opinion and Order
Docket Entry
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER - denying 375 Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law. For the foregoing reasons, Lillys motion for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial is denied. The Clerk is directed to close the case
Length
79 pages

Editorial Summary

AI-assisted editorial summary; not attorney-reviewed. Verify against the opinion itself before relying on any characterization of the holding.

After a jury found that Lilly induced infringement of claim 1 of UroPep's U.S. Patent No. 8,791,124 — directed to administering a PDE5 inhibitor to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia — by marketing Cialis for BPH, and awarded $20 million, Lilly moved for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial under Rules 50(b) and 59. Judge Bryson, sitting by designation, rejected Lilly's non-infringement and § 112 invalidity arguments (including enablement and written description challenges to the functionally defined genus of PDE5 inhibitors) as well as its trial-management complaints, and denied the motion in full.

Download Opinion (PDF)

Source: govinfo.gov USCOURTS collection · retrieved July 23, 2026 · Report an error

Other documents in this case