Litigation Details for ERFINDERGEMEINSCHAFT UROPEP GbR v. Eli Lilly and Company (E.D. Tex. 2015)

ERFINDERGEMEINSCHAFT UROPEP GbR v. Eli Lilly and Company (E.D. Tex. 2015)

Docket		Date Filed	2015-07-01
Court	District Court, E.D. Texas	Date Terminated	2017-08-25
Cause	15:1126 Patent Infringement	Assigned To	William C. Bryson
Jury Demand	Both	Referred To
Patents	6,455,557; 6,469,012; 9,393,238; RE38,115
Link to Docket	External link to docket

Details for ERFINDERGEMEINSCHAFT UROPEP GbR v. Eli Lilly and Company (E.D. Tex. 2015)

Date Filed	Document No.	Description	Snippet	Link To Document
2015-07-01				External link to document
2015-07-01	129	Response in Opposition to Motion	9,393,238 issued July 19, 2016 and is assigned to Celgene. Ex. 53, App. at 1065. It claims a method… ’124 patent contributed to your conclusion that the claims of the ’124 patent lack written…potentially, thousands of patents and dozens of Lilly’s. 10 We will return to the patent at issue in Avanir…To Existing Patents, Including Lilly’s There are 27,465 United States patents with claims …numerous patents that could be dramatically impacted by Lilly’s argument. For example, U.S. Patent No. 9,393,238	External link to document
2015-07-01	130	Exhibit 65 - U.S. Patent RE38,115 E	463756A1, # 4 Exhibit 53 - U.S. Patent 9,393,238, # 5 Exhibit 54 - Lilly Patents with Claim Term Inhibitor,…Inhibitor, # 6 Exhibit 55 - U. S. Patent 5,674,887, # 7 Exhibit 56 - U.S. Patent 6,451,807, # 8 Exhibit 57 - Sybertz…2009), # 19 Exhibit 68 - U.S. Patent 6,245,802, # 20 Exhibit 69 - U.S. Patent 6,492,371, # 21 Exhibit 70 … Sybertz (1995), # 9 Exhibit 58 - U.S. Patent 5,393,755, # 10 Exhibit 59 - EP 0579496 A1, # 11 Exhibit…Claim Construction Hearing, # 16 Exhibit 65 - U.S. Patent RE38,115 E, # 17 Exhibit 66 - Mayo Clinic List	External link to document
2015-07-01	198	Motion in Limine	0001-5 2. Pfizer U.S. Patent No. 6,469,012 …Parte Reexamination Certificate for U.S. Patent No. 6,469,012 0053-87 4. Ex Parte…the ‘124 Patent”) nor prior art to the ‘124 Patent in an attempt to bolster the ‘124 Patent’s disclosure…compare the ‘124 Patent to Lilly’s U.S. Patent No. 6,451,807 (“the ‘807 Patent”) in both its present…Meaning, or Scope of the ‘124 Patent Drawn from Unrelated Patents. ........................	External link to document
2015-07-01	38	Response in Opposition to Motion	at 1 (D.N.J. Oct. 11, 2007) (citing U.S. Patent No. 6,455,557). The district court in that case construed…Lilly and Brookshire infringe U.S. Patent No. 8,791,124 (“the ʼ124 Patent”) through the sale of Cialis® for…Direct Infringement of the ’124 Patent. Claim 1 of the ’124 Patent recites, in pertinent part, “… Brookshire for Direct Infringement of the ’124 Patent. .........................................7  …Brookshire for Indirect Infringement of the ’124 Patent. ....................................11  IV.	External link to document

Litigation summary and analysis for: ERFINDERGEMEINSCHAFT UROPEP GbR v. Eli Lilly and Company (E.D. Tex. 2015)

Last updated: July 20, 2026

ERFINDERGEMEINSCHAFT UROPEP GbR v. Eli Lilly and Company (2:15-cv-01202): Litigation Summary, Patent Issues, and Expiration/Generic Risk Analysis

Executive summary

• Case: ErfinderGemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly and Co., No. 2:15-cv-01202 (E.D. Texas), filed 2015 (per docket caption).
• Core dispute: patent-enforcement action targeting Eli Lilly’s commercialization activity for an identified Lilly product within a patent estate held by ErfinderGemeinschaft UroPep GbR.
• What the litigation affects commercially: potential injunction risk against Lilly’s at-issue product(s) during the pendency and a forward-looking threat profile for generic market entry tied to the asserted patents’ remaining life.
• Practical takeaway: the litigation’s value hinges on (i) which patents were asserted, (ii) the adjudicated claim scope and validity findings, and (iii) whether any settlement or license agreement resolved the case.

No further litigation-specific results (asserted patent numbers, rulings, settlement terms, judgment dates, or appellate disposition) can be produced from the information provided in the prompt alone.

What patents were asserted in ErfinderGemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly (2:15-cv-01202)?

Featured snippet answer: The asserted patents and their claim themes cannot be identified from the case caption and docket number alone.

Which patent claims were typically at issue in UroPep-focused enforcement?

Without docket-level documents, the following cannot be tied to this case:

• Method-of-treatment claims (urology indications)
• Composition/formulation claims
• Combination therapy claims
• Specific formulation parameters (dose ranges, excipients, release profiles)
• Priority chains and claim construction posture

What is the procedural history in 2:15-cv-01202 (motions, claim construction, trial)?

Featured snippet answer: The procedural posture cannot be summarized without access to docket entries and orders.

Key milestones analysts track

• Complaint and served defendants (and any counterclaims)
• Markman/claim construction order
• Summary judgment rulings (validity and infringement)
• Discovery disputes (expert reports, document production scope)
• Final judgment and any permanent injunction decision
• Post-trial motions and appeals

How did the court rule on validity and infringement in 2:15-cv-01202?

Featured snippet answer: Validity and infringement outcomes cannot be determined from the prompt.

What “wins” typically mean in this docket type

• Infringement finding triggers injunction/ongoing royalty exposure (if not stayed)
• Invalidity findings narrow or eliminate exclusivity value
• Claim construction can be dispositive even if infringement remains contested

Was there a settlement or licensing agreement in 2:15-cv-01202?

Featured snippet answer: Settlement terms and whether the parties resolved the case are not derivable from the docket number and party names alone.

If settled, what should be checked

• Whether settlement is tied to entry dates
• Whether it includes covenant-not-to-sue scopes
• Whether it includes “launch-at-risk” carve-outs
• Whether it covers additional formulations, dosages, or line extensions

When do the asserted patents expire, and when does exclusivity end for Eli Lilly’s product?

Featured snippet answer: Patent expiration dates cannot be computed without the asserted patent numbers and their priority/term baselines.

What you need for an expiration model

• Patent grant dates and expiration terms
• PTA/PTE adjustments
• Family member fallbacks (continuations/divisionals)
• Country coverage (US, EP, DE filings)
• Any terminal disclaimer effects
• Relevant regulatory exclusivities (if applicable)

What generic entry risks exist for Eli Lilly’s at-issue product after 2:15-cv-01202?

Featured snippet answer: Generic entry risk cannot be quantified without identifying the asserted patents and any final judgments.

Risk buckets used in practice

• High risk: active asserted patents with adverse validity/infringement rulings
• Medium risk: pending appeals or partially survived claims
• Lower risk: invalidated claims or narrow construction limiting enforcement
• Biosimilar-style analog: not applicable unless a biologic is involved

What is the Orange Book status of the Lilly product(s) involved in 2:15-cv-01202?

Featured snippet answer: Orange Book listings cannot be confirmed without knowing the exact Lilly NDA/active ingredient(s) at issue in the case.

What to extract from Orange Book

• Drug product names and dosage forms
• Listed patents (composition, method-of-use)
• Expiration dates and exclusivity end dates
• Any listed patents that match the case asserted set

How strong is the patent estate for ErfinderGemeinschaft UroPep GbR vs. Lilly (litigation leverage)?

Featured snippet answer: Strength cannot be evaluated without the asserted-patent set and outcomes.

Strength indicators that matter

• Independent claim count and historical survival
• Claim construction outcomes in the record
• Continuation strategy suggesting broad/defensible coverage
• Overlap with likely generic design-arounds

What patent litigation affects this patent estate beyond 2:15-cv-01202?

Featured snippet answer: Cross-case impact cannot be identified without the asserted patents’ identities.

Cross-case analytics

• Same family asserted in other districts
• Same claim limitations recurring in later challenges
• Federal Circuit history affecting enforceability or claim scope

---

Key Takeaways

• Case identification is clear (ErfinderGemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly and Co., 2:15-cv-01202), but litigation results and patent-specific substance are not provided in the prompt.
• Without asserted patent numbers, docket order dates, and judgment/settlement dispositions, this matter cannot support an accurate expiration timeline, claim-scope analysis, or generic entry risk assessment.

---

FAQs

1. What district and judge handled ErfinderGemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly (2:15-cv-01202)?
2. Which specific ErfinderGemeinschaft UroPep GbR patents were asserted in 2:15-cv-01202?
3. Did the parties reach a settlement in 2:15-cv-01202, and did it include an agreed launch date?
4. What final judgment did the court enter on infringement and validity in 2:15-cv-01202?
5. How do the asserted patents map to Orange Book-listed patents for the corresponding Eli Lilly NDA?

---

References (APA)

1. ErfinderGemeinschaft UroPep GbR v. Eli Lilly and Company, No. 2:15-cv-01202 (E.D. Tex. 2015).