Logourl black
From our private database of 14,000+ case briefs...

Eli Lilly & Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
82 F.3d 1568 (1996)


Facts

Eli Lilly and Company (Lilly) (plaintiff) developed an antibiotic drug named cefaclor. Cefaclor was a cephum compound, and it required an intermediate compound called enol cephum for its production. The enol cephum was processed through several steps to obtain the final cefaclor product. Lilly purchased a patent covering a method for producing Compound 6, which is a type of enol cephum intermediate. Compound 6 and cefaclor were both based on a cephum nucleus, but the compounds were comprised of different carboxyl groups, resulting in different antibiotic potency. The process required four additional chemical steps to create cefaclor from Compound 6, during which hydroxyl groups were added and removed. Biochimica Opos, S.p.A. (Opos) (defendant) manufactured cefaclor in Italy and sold it to Zenith Laboratories, Inc., American Cyanamid Company, and Biocraft Laboratories (cefaclor purchasers) (defendants), for distribution in the United States. Lilly sued the cefaclor purchasers and Opos, seeking a preliminary injunction. Lilly argued that the importation into the United States of cefaclor produced abroad infringed its patent because Opos used Lilly’s patented Compound 6 manufacturing process as part of its cefaclor-production process. The district court found that Lilly was not likely to be successful on an infringement claim. The court reasoned that although Opos used Lilly’s patented process to create Compound 6 in Italy, the Compound 6 was materially changed by subsequent processes before becoming its final product, cefaclor. This change occurred before the product was imported into the United States. Lilly appealed.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is the black letter law upon which the court rested its decision.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Issue

The issue section includes the dispositive legal issue in the case phrased as a question.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Holding and Reasoning (Bryson, J.)

The holding and reasoning section includes:

  • A “yes” or “no” answer to the question framed in the issue section;
  • A summary of the majority or plurality opinion, using the CREAC method; and
  • The procedural disposition (e.g. reversed and remanded, affirmed, etc.).

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

Concurrence (Rader, J.)

The concurrence section is for members only and includes a summary of the concurring judge or justice’s opinion.

To access this section, please start your free trial or log in.

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.

Here's why 176,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,000 briefs, keyed to 188 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.