United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

05-1396, -1429, -1430 

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and LILLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED, 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 

(now known as Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), 

Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

 TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., 

 Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD., 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

Charles E. Lipsey, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, L.L.P., of 

Reston, Virginia, argued for plaintiffs-appellees. With him on the brief were L. Scott 

Burwell; David S. Forman and Laura P. Masurovsky, of Washington, DC; Robert F.

McCauley, of Palo Alto, California; and Jan M. Carroll, Barnes & Thornburg, LLP, of 

Indianapolis, Indiana. Of counsel on the brief were James P. Leeds, David M. Stemerick, 

and Robert D. Titus, Eli Lilly and Company, of Indianapolis, Indiana. 

William L. Mentlik, Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik, LLP, of 

Westfield, New Jersey, argued for defendant-appellant, Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, 

Inc. (now known as Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc.). With him on the brief were Roy H. 

Wepner and Michael H. Teschner. Of counsel on the brief were Jeffrey S. Ward and 

Thomas P. Heneghan, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, of Madison, Wisconsin. Joining in 

the brief were Steven J. Lee, Elizabeth Holland, and Patrice P. Jean, Kenyon & Kenyon, 

of New York, New York, for defendant-appellant,Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. 
Stuart D. Sender, Budd Larner, P.C., of Short Hills, New Jersey, argued for 

defendant-appellant, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. With him on the brief were Ellen T. 

Lowenthal and Michael H. Imbacuan. 

Appealed from: United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana 

Judge Richard L. Young 
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 

05-1396,-1429,-1430 

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY and LILLY INDUSTRIES LIMITED, 

 Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

v. 

ZENITH GOLDLINE PHARMACEUTICALS, INC. 

(now known as Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc.), 

 Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., 

 Defendant-Appellant, 

and 

DR. REDDY’S LABORATORIES, LTD., 

 Defendant-Appellant. 

___________________________ 

 DECIDED: December 26, 2006 

___________________________ 

Before RADER, SCHALL, and GAJARSA, Circuit Judges. 

RADER, Circuit Judge. 

Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (now known as IVAX Pharmaceuticals,

Inc.) (IVAX); Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd. (DRL); and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. 

(Teva) (defendants), filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA). In response,

the plaintiffs, Eli Lilly and Company and Lilly Industries Ltd. (collectively Lilly), filed suit 

against all defendants for infringement of United States Patent No. 5,229,382 (’382 

05-1396,-1429,-1430 1
patent). Following a two and one-half week bench trial, the United States District Court 

for the Southern District of Indiana found the ’382 patent valid and infringed. Eli Lilly &

Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., 1:01-cv-443-RLY-VSS (S.D. Ind. Apr. 14, 2005) (Final 

Judgment); Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharm., 1:01-cv-443-RLY-VSS (S.D. Ind.

May 9, 2005) (Amended Final Judgment). In 221 pages of written analysis, the trial 

court documented its findings and conclusions. Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline

Pharm., 1:01-cv-443-RLY-VSS (S.D. Ind. Apr. 14, 2005) (Findings of Fact and

Conclusions of Law). The defendants appeal the trial court’s conclusions on the validity

of the ’382 patent and inequitable conduct. Finding no reversible error, this court 

affirms. 

I. 

The ’382 patent claims both olanzapine and use of the compound to treat 

schizophrenia. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, slip op. at 3. A Lilly research

chemist first synthesized olanzapine in the United Kingdom in 1982. Id. at 12. Lilly filed 

the ’382 patent application on May 22, 1992. The patent issued on July 20, 1993. The 

United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approved olanzapine, sold by Lilly

under the trademark Zyprexa®, in late 1996. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, 

slip op. at 3. By filing an ANDA, the defendants stipulate to infringement if the ’382 

patent is valid and enforceable. Amended Final Judgment, slip op. at 1. 

Claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 15 of the ’382 patent set forth the boundaries of the 

invention: 

1. 2-Methyl-10-(4-methyl-1-piperazinyl)-4H-thieno[2,3-

b][1,5]benzodiazepine, or an acid addition salt thereof. 

05-1396, -1429, -1430 2
2. A pharmaceutical composition comprising a compound according to 

claim 1 or a pharmaceutically acceptable acid addition salt thereof together with 

a pharmaceutically acceptable diluent or carrier therefor. 

3. A pharmaceutical composition in capsule or tablet form comprising from 

2.5 to 5 mg of the compound of claim 1 together with a pharmaceutically 

acceptable diluent or carrier therefor. 

* * * * 

7. A method of claim 5 for treating an animal, including a human, suffering 

from or susceptible to schizophrenia. 

8. A method of claim 7 wherein the effective amount is from 0.1 to 20 mg 

per day of 2-methyl-10-(4-methyl-1-piperazinyl)-4H-thieno[2,3-

b][1,5]benzodiazepine, or a pharmaceutically acceptable acid addition solution 

salt thereof. 

* * * * 

15. A pharmaceutical composition in capsule or tablet form comprising 

from 0.1 to 20 mg of the compound of claim 1 together with a pharmaceutically 

acceptable diluent or carrier therefor. 

’382 patent, col. 12, ll. 10-20, ll. 33-40, ll. 64-67. 

Before discovery of olanzapine, Lilly discovered other drugs in the same family of

compounds (thienobenzodiazepines), namely clozapine, flumezapine, ethyl flumezapine 

and ethyl olanzapine (a.k.a. Compound ‘222). Findings of Fact and Conclusions of

Law, slip op. at 6-8. These compounds share a common structural nucleus as

thienobenzodiazepines, namely a piperazine ring (R), a benzene ring (R1), and a 

thiophene ring (R2). 

 

R 

R1 R2 

05-1396, -1429, -1430 3
Lilly used clozapine to treat some forms of schizophrenia in the late ‘60s and early ‘70s. 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, slip op. at 6. Clozapine was thus the first 

“atypical” antipsychotic drug. Structurally, olanzapine differs from clozapine in that 

olanzapine has a methyl-substituted thiophene ring in place of the benzene ring in

clozapine. Id. at 40. Olanzapine also has hydrogen in place of the chlorine on its 

benzene ring. Id. at 41. 

Despite its advantages, researchers discovered in 1975 that clozapine caused an 

often fatal blood disorder (agranulocytosis) in one percent of patients. For that reason,

Lilly withdrew clozapine from the market. Id. Nevertheless, after a general failure to 

replace clozapine, reflected by many documented reports of promising compounds that

failed either for lack of efficacy or toxic side-effects, the FDA, in late 1989, approved 

clozapine with careful blood-monitoring. Id. at 7. 

Until discovery of olanzapine, researchers attributed the efficacy of clozapine and 

typical antipsychotics to their “neuroleptic substituent”—an electron-withdrawing group 

considered important to the antipsychotic activity of the compounds. Id. Halogen – a

fluorine (F) or chlorine (Cl) atom – is such an electron withdrawing group. Id. at 7, 48. 

Olanzapine does not have a 

halogen atom, i.e. a fluorine (F) or 

chlorine (Cl) atom. Instead, it has a 

hydrogen atom (H), which is not an 

electron withdrawing (or 

electronegative) group. Id. at 48. 

 

05-1396, -1429, -1430 4
The prior art to olanzapine includes ethyl flumezapine and flumezapine, both 

disclosed in U.S. Patent No. 4,115,574 (’574 patent) that issued in 1978. The prior art 

also includes ethyl olanzapine (a.k.a. Compound ‘222). Ethyl flumezapine caused 

widespread blood problems in dogs. Id. at 41. Flumezapine caused extra-pyramidal 

symptoms (EPS) and an increase in liver enzymes and a muscle enzyme called

creatine phosphokinase (CPK). Ethyl olanzapine caused a significant increase in 

cholesterol in female beagle dogs. Id. Thus, the prior art to olanzapine had significant

detrimental side effects. 

Olanzapine differs structurally from 

flumezapine, by substitution of a hydrogen atom 

(H) for the fluorine atom (F) in flumezapine at 

the 7-position of the benzene ring. Id. 

Olanzapine differs structurally from ethyl 

flumezapine by replacement of the fluorine atom 

(F) and ethyl group (CH2CH3) in ethyl 

flumezapine with a hydrogen atom (H) and 

methyl group (CH3) respectively. Id. 

Olanzapine differs structurally from its 

ethyl analog, Compound ‘222 (ethyl olanzapine),

by replacement of the ethyl group (CH2CH3) with

a methyl group (CH3) at the 2-position of the 

thiophene ring. Id. 

 (Compound ‘222)

I 

05-1396,-1429,-1430 5
The trial court found that the defendants did not prove by clear and convincing 

evidence that claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 15 of the ’382 patent were invalid as anticipated 

under 35 U.S.C. § 102. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, slip op. at 212. The 

primary reference the defendants cited for anticipation of these claims is an article 

entitled “4-Piperazinyl-10H-thieno[2,3-b][1,5]benzodiazepines as Potential Neuroleptics”

from the Journal of Medicinal Chemistry in 1980 (Chakrabarti 1980a). Jiban K.

Chakrabarti, Linda Horsman, et al., 4-Piperazinyl-10H-thieno[2,3-

b][1,5]benzodiazepines as Potential Neuroleptics, 23 J. Med. Chem. 8 (1980). 

Anticipation is a question of fact, including whether or not an element is inherent

in the prior art. See In re Schreiber, 128 F.3d 1473, 1477 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Therefore, 

this court reviews a finding of anticipation under the clearly erroneous standard. Atlas

Powder Co. v. lreco, Inc., 190 F.3d 1342, 1346 (Fed. Cir. 1999). To anticipate, a prior 

art reference must place the inventive compound or composition in the possession of 

the public. In re Brown, 329 F.2d 1006, 1011 (C.C.P.A. 1964). Thus, the prior art 

reference must disclose each and every feature of the claimed invention, either explicitly 

or inherently. Glaxo Inc. v. Novopharm Ltd., 52 F.3d 1043, 1047 (Fed. Cir. 1995). 

Pointing to In re Petering, 301 F.2d 676 (C.C.P.A. 1962) and In re Schaumann, 

572 F.2d 312 (C.C.P.A. 1987), IVAX asserts that Chakrabarti 1980a anticipated claim 1 

of the ’382 patent because it identified compounds from the same family of compounds 

(thienobenzodiazepines). Indeed, in Petering, the Board of Patent Appeals affirmed the 

examiner’s rejection of claims 1, 2, 4, 5, 7, and 10-12 of the patent applicant’s

application on “isoalloxazines.” 301 F.2d at 677. However, in contrast to this case, the

prior art in Petering did more than make a broad generic disclosure. In Petering, the 

05-1396, -1429, -1430 6
prior art disclosed a limited number of specific preferences from a specifically defined 

group of isoalloxazines. Id. As a result, Petering actually disclosed to one skilled in the 

art a limited class of only “some 20 compounds,” including “6, 7-dimethyl-9-(Bmonohydroxyethyl)-isoalloxazine.” Schaumann, 572 F.2d 315 (citing Petering, 301 F.2d 

at 682). 

Similarly, the prior art in Schaumann disclosed 14 compounds, later further 

narrowed to 7, considering express preferences. Additionally, the structural formula of

this prior art contained but a single variable. 572 F.2d at 314. Thus, in Schaumann, the 

prior art patent embraced a very limited number of closely related compounds and 

specifically described the claimed compound. 572 F.2d at 316. Thus, unlike this case, 

the prior art in both Petering and Schaumann expressly spelled out a definite and 

limited class of compounds that enabled a person of ordinary skill in the art to at once 

envisage each member of this limited class. Schaumann, 572 F.2d at 315; Petering, 

301 F.2d at 681-82. 

By contrast, the number of compounds actually disclosed by Chakrabarti 1980a

numbers in the millions (including all proposed alternative substituents). Chakrabarti 

1980a examined forty-five specific compounds (as opposed to a genus of compounds)

in the 4-piperazinyl-10H-thieno[2,3-b][1,5]benzodiazepine family and fourteen 

analogous 5-piperazinyl-substituted 4H-thieno[2,3-b][1,4]benzodiazepines, which were 

created to compare activity. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, slip op. at 43. 

Indeed, Chakrabarti 1980a listed several preferred compounds and substituents, none 

of which resemble olanzapine: 

for R - a methyl, hydroxyethyl, or hydroxypropyl; 

for R1 - a fluorine, chlorine, or 7, 8, di-fluoro [no hydrogen]; and 

05-1396, -1429, -1430 7
for R2 - a methyl, 2-ethyl, or 2-isopropyl group. 

Id. at 43. Five of the preferred individual compounds (9, 12, 17, 29, and 34) are more 

potent than clozapine (scoring a 3 CAR1

 or higher) and have clozapine-like effect. For 

those five preferred compounds, the Chakrabarti 1980a authors expressed a preference 

for specific, complete compounds without any variation of the individual substituents on 

those molecules. Chakrabarti 1980a also always expressed a preference for halogencontaining compounds (fluorine or chlorine), not hydrogen. Id. at 8-9. Furthermore, 

compounds 9, 12, 17, and 29 all have fluorine at the 7-position of the benzene ring. 

And though Compound 34 does have hydrogen at the 7-position of the benzene ring, it 

has a hydroxyethyl on its piperazine ring, unlike olanzapine. Id. In sum, Chakrabarti 

1980a discloses nothing close to the claimed invention. 

Chakrabarti 1980a does provide a general structural formula with possible

substituents of “R,” “R1,” and “R2,” but it does not define them at all. Findings of Fact

and Conclusions of Law, slip op. at 161. No possible combination of those preferred 

substituents would lead to the components that make up olanzapine, because each 

would contain a fluorine or a chlorine. To make olanzapine from Chakrabarti 1980a, 

one would have to depart from the teaching of the article and recombine the 

components of the specific illustrative compounds with hindsight. Thus, Chakrabarti 

1980a does not anticipate because: (1) the article prefers complete compounds, not

individual substituents, (2) the article discloses no generic disclosure encompassing 

 1 Conditioned Avoidance Response (CAR): The CAR test evaluates the 

inhibition of a behavioral response in rats. The CAR test was the only measure of

potential antipsychotic activity, and if the compound did not achieve a CAR score of 

three or four at a dose of less than 30 mg/kg, it was not considered active. 

05-1396, -1429, -1430 8
olanzapine or even stating that substituents on different compounds were 

interchangeable, and (3) the article does not suggest transforming unpreferred 

compound 72

 into a preferred compound. Thus, Chakrabarti 1980a did not place 

olanzapine in the possession of the public. Therefore, this court detects no clear error

in the trial court’s finding of no anticipation. 

II 

The trial court found that the defendants did not prove by clear and convincing 

evidence that claims 1, 2, 3, 7, 8, and 15 of the ’382 patent were invalid as obvious

under 35 U.S.C. § 103. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, slip op. at 212. On 

appeal, IVAX argues that the district court erred by erecting “a threshold requirement

that defendants establish a teaching or incentive to treat the closest prior art (i.e., 

Compound ‘222) as a ‘lead compound.’” IVAX also charges that the district court 

disregarded (1) the structural characteristic of olanzapine as the adjacent homolog of 

Compound ‘222, (2) the suggestions to delete fluorine from the prior art compound 

flumezapine, and (3) the observation that Compound ‘222 and flumezapine “bracket”

olanzapine. 

This court reviews obviousness without deference as a legal conclusion with 

underlying factual determinations which are reviewed for clear error. Medichem, S.A. v.

Rolabo, S.L., 437 F.3d 1157, 1164 (Fed. Cir. 2006). The factual underpinnings are: (1) 

the scope and content of the prior art, (2) the differences between the prior art and the 

claimed invention at the time of invention, (3) the level of ordinary skill in the art, and (4) 

 2 Furthermore, compound 7 (like compound ‘222) lacks the electron 

withdrawing “neuroleptic substituent” believed at that time to be necessary for 

antipsychotic efficacy. 

05-1396, -1429, -1430 9
the objective indicia of nonobviousness. See Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1,

17 (1966); Panduit Corp. v. Dennison Mfg., 810 F.2d 1561, 1566-67 (Fed. Cir. 1987).

For a chemical compound, a prima facie case of obviousness requires “structural 

similarity between claimed and prior art subject matter . . . where the prior art gives 

reason or motivation to make the claimed compositions.” In re Dillon, 919 F.2d 688, 

692 (Fed. Cir. 1990) (en banc). “[A] reasonable expectation of success, not absolute 

predictability” supports a conclusion of obviousness. In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 896 

(Fed. Cir. 1985). 

For the following reasons, the district court did not err in reaching its conclusion. 

As succinctly stated by the district court: 

175. In light of the general state of the art, including the teachings 

of the ’574 patent and Chakrabarti 1980a, Chakrabarti 1982, and

Chakrabarti 1989, one of ordinary skill in the art would have expected that 

replacing the fluorine atom with a hydrogen atom would produce a 

compound without sufficient antipsychotic activity. Nichols Tr. 2776:5-11. 

176. While Chakrabarti 1980a suggests that a chlorine atom in 

place of the fluorine atom would also enhance the compound’s activity, it

does not specifically suggest that the same result could be obtained with a 

hydrogen atom. Nichols Tr. 2779: 17-24; TX 3465 at 879, col. 2. Nor does

anything in Sullivan and Franklin suggest the desirability of using a 

hydrogen atom at this position. Nichols 2776:5-11; TX 3161; Findings of

Fact § IV. B.I.d. lf one were looking to replace the fluorine, one would 

replace the fluorine with other electronegative groups, not hydrogen. TX 

1315 at 3172; LaVoie Tr. 1572:12- 1573:18. Indeed, the art as a whole 

teaches directly away from using hydrogen because it is not an electronwithdrawing substituent. 

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, slip op. at 48 (emphases added). Though the 

’574 patent disclosed Compound ‘222, the patent expressed a preference for halogen

containing compounds and specifically those with a halogenated substituent on the 

benzene ring in a location analogous to the chlorine in clozapine. Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law, slip op. at 36. These teachings do not suggest or make obvious,

05-1396, -1429, -1430 10
among other things, olanzapine’s hydrogen component. The prior art references at the 

time of this invention taught away from using a non-halogenated compound as a 

substituent in the benzene ring, exactly where olanzapine has a hydrogen atom. 

Furthermore, the trial court found that a person of ordinary skill in the art would 

not have chosen Compound ‘222 as the beginning compound because it contained a 

hydrogen atom instead of a halogen atom, which again is not a preferred substituent.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, slip op. at 46. In addition, the prior art

supplied no motivation to change the 2-ethyl in Compound ‘222 to a 2-methyl. The prior 

art would have instead suggested modification by adding a halogen atom to supply the

neuroleptic substituent as a trigger for antipsychotic activity. Id. The district court found 

that, at the relevant time, a person with ordinary skill in the art would not have expected 

any reasonable chance of success with other clozapine-like compounds. Id. at 49-51. 

And though olanzapine is also the adjacent homolog of Compound ‘222, 

patentability for a chemical compound does not depend only on structural similarity. 

Comm’r of Patents v. Deutsche Gold-und-Silber-Scheideanstalt Vormals Roessler, 397 

F.2d 656 (D.C. Cir. 1968). This court will not ignore a relevant property of a compound

in the obviousness calculus. In re Lalu, 747 F.2d 703 (Fed. Cir. 1984). When claimed 

properties differ from the prior art, those differences, if unexpected and significant, may 

lead to nonobviousness. In re Mehta, 347 F.2d 859 (C.C.P.A. 1965); In re Grabiak, 769 

F.2d 729 (Fed. Cir. 1985). In this case, the trial court noted some structural similarity of 

olanzapine and the prior art, but also accounted for the unexpected beneficial properties 

in olanzapine. 

05-1396, -1429, -1430 11
This case is similar in many respects to Yamanouchi Pharm. Co., Ltd. v. Danbury 

Pharmacal, Inc., 231 F.3d 1339, 1344 (Fed. Cir. 2000). In Yamanouchi, this court held 

that the ANDA filer did not show obviousness of the famotidine compound: 

[The ANDA filer] did not show sufficient motivation for one of ordinary skill in the 

art at the time of invention to take any one of the following steps, let alone the 

entire complex combination: (1) selecting example 44 as a lead compound, (2) 

combining the polar tail from example 44 with the substituted heterocycle from 

tiotidine, and (3) substituting the carbamoyl (CONH2) group in the intermediate 

compound with a sulfamoyl group (SO2NH2) to create famotidine. 

Id. Likewise, in this case, the defendants have not shown that a person ordinarily 

skilled in this art would have selected Compound ‘222 as a lead compound because it

contained hydrogen rather than fluorine or chlorine. At the time of invention, the state of 

the art would have directed the person of ordinary skill in the art away from 

unfluorinated compounds like Compound ‘222. After all, the primary example of the 

state of the art at that time, the ’574 patent, did not provide any biological data for

compound ‘222, suggested a preference for halogen-containing compounds, and 

identified a fluorine-containing compound, ethyl flumezapine, as “particularly active.”

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, slip op. at p. 170. Moreover, as the trial court

detailed, Chakrabarti 1980a expressly taught that the addition of a fluorine or chlorine 

enhanced anti-psychotic activity. It also taught that the unfluorinated Compound ‘222 

was less active than the benchmark compound, clozapine. Id. Thus, rather than 

providing the requisite motivation, the prior art taught away from selecting Compound 

‘222 as a lead compound for further development. 

Nevertheless, citing to an article entitled “In Vitro Thiomethylation: Studies with 

Flumezapine,” written by H.R. Sullivan and R.B. Franklin (S&F article), IVAX argues that 

removal of fluorine from flumezapine would have resulted in a default to a hydrogen

05-1396, -1429, -1430 12
atom. H.R. Sullivan and R.B. Franklin, In Vitro Thiomethylation: Studies with 

Flumezapine, 13 Drug & Metabolism Disposition 276 (1985). To the contrary, however, 

the S&F article says nothing whatsoever about removal of fluorine. Specifically, the 

article discusses the metabolism of flumezapine in dogs that produces methylthio 

metabolite. Id. The S&F article does not state that flumezapine is toxic or that the 

methylthio metabolite could be avoided by replacement of fluorine with hydrogen. As 

noted by the district court, the S&F article “does not teach that replacing the fluorine 

with a hydrogen atom would stop the formation of the methylthio metabolite. Indeed, 

acetaminophen (Tylenol®), a non-fluorinated compound, also forms methylthio 

metabolite.” Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, slip op. at 39. The trial court

correctly concluded that nothing in the S&F article suggested “that a hydrogen atom in 

place of the fluorine atom . . . would be desirable . . . or that to make such a substitution 

would avoid the formation of the methylthio metabolite.” Id. 

Beyond the nonobvious selection step, the prior art also did not suggest any of 

the other modifications necessary to reach olanzapine. Thus, even if the S&F article 

taught what IVAX claims, the skilled artisan would still need to combine those teachings

with compound 34 in Chakrabarti 1980a to reach olanzapine. As taught by Yamanouchi 

Pharm. Co. and other precedent, mere identification in the prior art of each component

of a composition does not show that the combination as a whole lacks the necessary

attributes for patentability, i.e. is obvious. In re Kahn, 441 F.3d 977, 986 (Fed. Cir. 

2006) (citing In re Rouffet, 149 F.3d 1350, 1355 (Fed. Cir. 1998)). Rather, to establish a 

prima facie case of obviousness based on a combination of elements in the prior art, the

law requires a motivation to select the references and to combine them in the particular

05-1396, -1429, -1430 13
claimed manner to reach the claimed invention. Id. In conclusion, because 

flumezapine caused EPS in two patients, elevations in CPK and a variety of liver

enzymes in a number of patients, substantial evidence supports the trial court’s 

conclusion that the S&F article would not have led a person of ordinary skill in the art to 

believe that flumezapine could be successfully modified with a hydrogen atom. The 

district court correctly concluded that nothing in the S&F article and Chakrabarti 1980a

made the combination reached in olanzapine obvious. 

Nonetheless, IVAX also cites to In re Payne, 606 F.2d 303 (C.C.P.A 1979) to 

argue that Compound ‘222 and flumezapine “bracket,” and thereby make olanzapine 

prima facie obvious. To the contrary, Payne did not feature prior art that taught away 

from making the structural alterations as in this case. In this case, the prior art would 

have directed one of skill away from making flumezapine and ethyl-olanzapine

(Compound ‘222). The “bracket” notion from Payne simply characterized the structural 

similarity in that case, which this court has noted does not control this case. 

Furthermore, Lilly overcame any prima facie case of obviousness. Among other 

things, Lilly proved extensive secondary considerations to rebut obviousness. The trial 

court found the evidence clearly established four of the five proffered secondary 

considerations. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, slip op. at 52-101, 173-87.

Lilly established (1) a long-felt and unmet need; (2) failure of others; (3) industry 

acclaim; and (4) unexpected results. Id. The record shows a long-felt need for a safer, 

less toxic, and more effective clozapine-like drug; a decade (or more) of failure to find a 

replacement for clozapine; a reasonable amount of commercial success for olanzapine; 

and a number of awards for olanzapine as indicators of industry acclaim. Id. at 52-54. 

05-1396, -1429, -1430 14
Specifically, the trial court noted a “long-felt but unsolved need for a safe atypical

antipsychotic from 1975 until 1990,” as well as extensive evidence supporting the other

objective criteria. Id. at 8-11, 174-75. The trial court also discussed the unexpected 

differences between the closest analog, Compound ‘222 and olanzapine, most of which 

focused on olanzapine not raising cholesterol levels in dogs, and a comparison of some 

humans tests with other similar drugs that raised CPK. Id. at 55-100. In sum, these 

objective criteria buttressed the trial court’s conclusion of nonobviousness. 

III 

The trial court concluded that Lilly’s clinical trials of olanzapine were not a public, 

but an experimental, use that negated any section 102 bar. Findings of Fact and 

Conclusions of Law, slip op. at 192-93. Under section 102, a person is entitled to a 

patent, unless “the invention was . . . in public use . . . in this country, more than one 

year prior to the date of the application for patent in the United States.” 35 U.S.C. § 

102(b) (2000). Public use includes “any [public] use of [the claimed] invention by a 

person other than the inventor who is under no limitation, restriction or obligation of 

secrecy to the inventor.” In re Smith, 714 F.2d 1127, 1134 (Fed. Cir. 1983) (citing 

Egbert v. Lippmann, 104 U.S. 333, 336 (1881)). 

In considering whether a particular use was “public” within the meaning of section 

102(b), this court considers the policies underlying the bar. Tone Bros., Inc. v. Sysco 

Corp., 28 F.3d 1192, 1198 (Fed. Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 514 U.S. 1015 (1995). In 

assessing this case, the trial court found that Lilly personnel conducted the HGAA, 

HGAB, and HGAC Phase I clinical trials of olanzapine in the Lilly clinic. Findings of Fact

and Conclusions of Law, slip op. at 189. In all three stages, Lilly restricted access to the 

05-1396, -1429, -1430 15
facility and provided full-time security. Id. Lilly closely monitored and confined the 

movements of the volunteers, who were healthy and not suffering from schizophrenia,

for the duration of the study. Id. Visitors to the volunteers did not interrupt the control or

confidentiality of the study. Id. Moreover, as the trial court noted, the clinical trials did

not use the drugs to treat schizophrenic patients, but merely to test the safety and 

efficacy of the drug. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, at 190-91. 

Beyond this convincing record evidence, the experimental character of these 

tests negated any statutory bar. Even a use that occurs in the open may not invoke a 

bar when undertaken to experiment on or with the claimed invention. TP Labs., Inc. v.

Prof’l Positioners, Inc., 724 F.2d 965, 971, (Fed. Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 826 

(1984). In the words of the Supreme Court, “[t]he use of an invention by the inventor

himself, or of any other person under his direction, by way of experiment, and in order to 

bring the invention to perfection, has never been regarded as [a public] use.” City of 

Elizabeth v. Am. Nicholson Pavement Co., 97 U.S. 126, 134 (1877). Several indicia 

may show the negating experimental character of a use, including (1) the length of the 

test period, (2) any confidentiality agreement, (3) any records of testing, (4) any 

monitoring and control of the test results, (5) the number of tests, and (6) the length of

the test period in relation to tests of similar inventions. TP Labs., 724 F.2d at 971-72;

see also In re Brigance, 792 F.2d 1103, 1108 (Fed. Cir. 1986). In this case, Lilly

tailored its tests to their experimental drug safety and efficacy purpose, adequately 

monitored for results, and maintained confidentiality throughout the duration of the 

study. The trial court did not err in finding no public use. 

05-1396, -1429, -1430 16
IV 

DRL argues that the district court erred in not finding inequitable conduct

because if it had looked at the totality of the circumstances, the evidence would have

shown that Lilly intentionally made per se material statements that misled the examiner. 

“Inequitable conduct occurs when a patentee breaches his or her duty to the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) of ‘candor, good faith, and honesty.’” 

Warner-Lambert Co. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 418 F.3d 1326, 1342 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

(quoting Molins PLC v. Textron, Inc., 48 F.3d 1172, 1178 (Fed. Cir. 1995)). Inequitable 

conduct includes affirmative misrepresentations of material facts, non-disclosure of

material information, or submission of false material information, coupled with an intent

to deceive. See Nobelpharma AB v. Implant Innovations, Inc., 141 F.3d 1059, 1068-71 

(Fed. Cir. 1998) (citing Molins, 48 F.3d at 1178). To assess inequitable conduct, the 

trial court must determine whether the withheld reference meets a threshold level of 

materiality. Dayco Prods., Inc. v. Total Containment, Inc., 329 F.3d 1358, 1362-63 

(Fed. Cir. 2003) (quoting Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Boehringer Ingelheim GMBH, 237 F.3d 

1359, 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2001)). Then, the trial court must also determine whether the 

evidence shows a threshold level of intent to mislead the PTO. See Halliburton Co. v. 

Schlumberger Tech. Corp., 925 F.2d 1435, 1439 (Fed. Cir. 1991). After finding the 

threshold levels of materiality and intent, the trial court then balances those factors. See

Molins, 48 F.3d at 1178. 

Gross negligence alone is insufficient to justify an inference of intent to deceive 

the PTO. See Kingsdown Med. Consultants, Ltd. v. Hollister, Inc., 863 F.2d 867, 876 

(Fed. Cir. 1988); FMC Corp. v. Manitowoc Co., 835 F.2d 1411, 1415 n.9 (Fed. Cir. 

05-1396, -1429, -1430 17
1987). In a case involving an omission of a material reference to the PTO, the record 

must contain clear and convincing evidence that the applicant made a deliberate 

decision to withhold a known material reference. See Molins, 48 F.3d at 1181. Beyond 

that, the applicant must have withheld the material subject matter with the intent to 

deceive. Ferring B.V. v. Barr Labs., Inc., 437 F.3d 1181, 1190 (Fed. Cir. 2006). “Intent 

to deceive cannot be inferred simply from the decision to withhold the reference where 

the reasons given for the withholding are plausible.” Dayco Prods., 329 F.3d at 1368. 

Before the Swedish Board, Lilly noted idiosyncratic blood toxicity problems in 

isolated dogs at 10 mg/kg, and DRL claims Lilly’s failure to mention this to the PTO is

inequitable conduct. However, the PTO had questions only about blood cholesterol 

levels. Before the Swedish Board, Lilly never commented about cholesterol levels.

Indeed, Lilly’s statements to the Swedish Board about the idiosyncratic blood toxicity

resulted from Lilly’s desire to conduct human clinical studies of olanzapine in 

Scandinavia. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, slip op. at 105. Before allowing 

human clinical studies, the Swedish Board required Lilly to respond to concerns about

the toxic effects of olanzapine on blood cells and bone marrow in dogs during the 

D07290 Dog Study. Id. at 205. Lilly replied that these findings of hematotoxicity “were 

believed not to have clinical relevance to humans since the effects occurred at large 

multiples of the clinical dose.” Id. at 105. These statements to the Swedish Board 

discounted the results of the blood studies by reference to idiosyncratic hematoxicity, 

not cholesterol problems. Thus, Lilly did not fail to disclose information or contradict its 

later patentability arguments. 

05-1396, -1429, -1430 18
Furthermore, contrary to DRL’s argument, Dr. David Scruby’s declaration did not 

create a “false” impression that the D07290 Dog Study cholesterol findings could be

extrapolated to humans. Dr. Scruby had been a staff physician at Lilly since 1983.

Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, slip op. at 121. This court acknowledges that

Rohm & Haas, Co. v. Crystal Chem. Co., 722 F.2d 1556, 1571 (Fed. Cir. 1983) states: 

“[T]here is no room to argue that submission of false affidavits is not material.” In this 

case, however, the record shows that Dr. Scruby’s affidavit was not false. 

Dr. Scruby’s affidavit could only be considered false if read to suggest that Dr. 

Scruby was telling the examiner to extrapolate point-by-point to humans olanzapine’s

improved cholesterol levels in dogs as compared to Compound ‘222. Dr. Scruby’s

affidavit does not suggest such an extrapolation of the benefits of olanzapine from dogs 

to humans. Dr. Scruby, in fact, separates into different paragraphs his discussions of

olanzapine’s benefits for cholesterol levels in humans and the effects of Compound ‘222 

for dogs. Furthermore, he expressly relies on the declarations of Dr. Jeffrey Means and 

Dr. James Symanowski as “the basis for my clinical statements concerning the dog 

toxicology studies.” Dr. Means is a pharmacologist and toxicologist; and Dr. 

Symanowski is a statistician. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, slip op. at 20. 

Dr. Scruby’s affidavit appears in the prosecution history as a Response After 

Final (Response) for the following propositions: (1) that “cholesterol is recognized as a 

factor in coronary artery disease;” (2) that the Framingham Study “indicated that a 1% 

reduction in the cholesterol level results in a 2% reduction in coronary artery disease;” 

and (3) that “there is overwhelming evidence in the literature that serum cholesterol in 

excess of 240 mg/dL is a significant contributor to the genesis of atherosclerosis.” 

05-1396, -1429, -1430 19
These statements are not false. The trial court did not err in discerning no clear and 

convincing evidence that Dr. Scruby misrepresented or withheld information from the 

PTO with an intent to deceive. Id., at 124. 

Lilly’s Response did not intentionally blur the distinctions between humans and 

dogs. Rather, Lilly’s Response expressly replied to the examiner’s request for human 

clinical comparisons of olanzapine and Compound ‘222 by stating: 

Applicants maintain that the Examiner’s request for human clinical 

comparison of olanzapine and compound ‘222 is inappropriate . . . . In 

light of serious consequences associated with artificially altering the 

balance of cholesterol synthesis, Applicants assert that human clinical

trials with ‘222 would be unethical and well as unreasonable. 

Response, at p. 11 (emphases added). Lilly made clear that it based none of its

statements about the effects of either olanzapine or Compound ‘222 on human testing. 

Furthermore, the examiner also understood that the cholesterol data was based on the 

D07290 Dog Study because he asked about those results without any reference to 

cholesterol benefits for humans. Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, slip op. at

121. 

In addition, on a separate inequitable conduct question, the trial court concluded 

that Lilly did not omit material subject matter from its Information Disclosure Statement 

in April 1991, which did not disclose the ’574 patent and Chakrabarti 1980a. Id. at 199. 

The trial court also found no clear and convincing evidence that Lilly withheld 

Chakrabarti 1980a or the ’574 patent with an intent to deceive the PTO. Id. at 199-200. 

The trial court noted that Lilly did disclose U.S. Patent No. 4,115,568 (’568 patent) to the 

PTO, and specifically explained that “[t]he reference fails to disclose the compound 

which is now claimed, but does describe the adjacent homologue [Compound ‘222].” Id.

05-1396, -1429, -1430 20
at 148. It also noted that the technical disclosures of the ’574 and ’568 patents are 

identical and each discloses the genus of compounds that generically includes

olanzapine. Moreover, Lilly cited the British counterpart of the ’574 and ’568 patents in 

the olanzapine patent application. In addition, the examiner found and relied on 

Chakrabarti 1980a during prosecution. As a result, the trial court did not err in its

conclusion that nondisclosure of Chakrabarti 1980a or the ’574 patent was neither a 

material omission nor done with an intent to deceive. 

V 

In conclusion, this court affirms the trial court on anticipation, obviousness, and 

public use questions. Because the parties do not dispute the facts, this court also 

affirms the trial court’s legal conclusions on inequitable conduct finding no abuse of

discretion therein. 

COSTS 

Each party shall bear its own costs. 

AFFIRMED

05-1396, -1429, -1430 21