Eli Lilly v. Aradigm

In an inventorship dispute, over an insulin delivery system, the federal circuit (LOURIE, CLEVENGER, and GAJARSA) reversed a jury’s verdict to add an inventor to the disputed patent.

While circumstantial evidence may in some cases be sufficient to surmount the clear and convincing evidence burden of proof, we conclude that the circumstantial evidence presented here is insufficient and that the jury’s verdict cannot stand.

In a concurring opinion, LOURIE argued that the burden of to show joint inventorship should be a preponderance of the evidence rather than clear and convincing.