Patent Case Watch

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

Weekly Digest
Fed. Cir.

Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep v. ELI Lilly and Company, No. 17-2603 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2018)

Affirmed
Rule 36 Affirmance
Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Case No.
No. 17-2603
Decided
October 10, 2018
Judge
Per curiam (Rule 36)
Document
Rule 36 Judgment
Length
2 pages
Download Opinion (PDF)

NOTE: This disposition is nonprecedential. United States Court of Appeals

for the Federal Circuit ERFINDERGEMEINSCHAFT UROPEP GBR,

Plaintiff-Appellee

v.

ELI LILLY AND COMPANY,

Defendant-Appellant

2017-2603

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas in No. 2:15-cv-01202-WCB, Circuit Judge William C. Bryson.

JUDGMENT

JOHN SCOTT MCBRIDE, Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP, Chicago, IL, argued for plaintiff-appellee. Also represented by ADAM MORTARA, BENJAMIN JOHN WHITING; MEG E. FASULO, JOHN HUGHES, NOSSON KNOBLOCH, Denver, CO. CHARLES E. LIPSEY, Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Reston, VA, argued for defendant-appellant. Also represented by JENNIFER SWAN, Palo Alto, CA; HOWARD WARREN LEVINE, Washington, DC.

2THIS CAUSE having been heard and considered, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED:

PER CURIAM (PROST, Chief Judge, MOORE and

HUGHES, Circuit Judges).

AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.

ENTERED BY ORDER OF THE COURT October 10, 2018 /s/ Peter R. Marksteiner Date Peter R. Marksteiner Clerk of Court

Text extracted from the official PDF and reflowed for reading. It is not a certified transcript — the PDF linked above is the authoritative document.

Analysis is coming soon.

A plain-English account of the issues, facts and holding, written by Patent Case Watch. The opinion itself — its full text, its PDF and everything else on this page — stays free to read for everyone, always.

Cite this opinion

Erfindergemeinschaft UroPep v. ELI Lilly and Company, No. 17-2603 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 10, 2018).

Record ID
CAFC-17-2603-20181010
Permalink
https://patentcasewatch.com/opinions/CAFC-17-2603-20181010

No reporter citation is shown because the official source does not supply one; none is inferred here. Check the opinion and a citator before relying on this form.

Source: Federal Circuit opinions and orders · retrieved August 15, 2026 · Report an error