ILNews

Lilly lawyer is leader in patent reform

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
In-House Counsel

Robert A. Armitage never intended to be a lawyer, let alone a corporate counsel representing one the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world.

But when his chosen path in physics began drying up because of dwindling government funding for science, the Michigan native looked to law school and took what he saw as an enormous risk.

Three decades later, the Indiana lawyer has been designated as one of the top 25 intellectual property attorneys in the country and serves as a senior vice president and general counsel for Indianapolis-based Eli Lilly and Company. And he recently experienced one of the most satisfying moments of his professional life: the passage of sweeping U.S. patent reform that he’s been advocating for since graduating from law school.

“Being in-house added a totally unexpected dimension to my career, but this third leg has been one of the most exciting parts so far,” he said. “Maybe I’m just a glutton for punishment, but I’ve not had a day that hasn’t been interesting and challenging in some way. I think the legal challenges you see here are more than enough to occupy your mind professionally.”
 

armitage-robert-15col.jpg Robert A. Armitage is a senior vice president and general counsel for Eli Lilly and Company based in Indianapolis. He’s been a leader in the intellectual property area of law during his legal career, and he’s been a leading advocate for U.S. patent reform. (IL Photo/ Perry Reichanadter)

Armitage grew up in Michigan and received a master’s degree in physics from the University of Michigan in 1971 with plans for a career in that field. But it was a tough time and the career outlook wasn’t good, he recalls.

He changed his course and went to law school. He remembers his first exposure to intellectual property law, and thinking that he’d never want a career in that practice area.

“My perception was that this was some crazy area of law where you have no idea what the law is even about,” Armitage said. “It’s an unusual field of law, in part, because we’ve had these types of issues and laws for 200-plus years. So, it was a little strange, a few months later, to think that this might be an interesting employment opportunity to go in-house as a patent lawyer.”

Armitage earned his law degree from the University of Michigan Law School in 1973, but his preferred employer – Eli Lilly in Indianapolis – turned him down because the company didn’t hire directly out of law school. So he went to work for the first 20 years of his career at the Upjohn Company in Kalamazoo, Mich., before mergers eventually made it a part of Pfizer in the 1990s. There, he served as chief IP counsel and led the patent division.

In 1993, Armitage left the corporate counsel world for private practice and moved his family to Washington, D.C., becoming a partner at Vinson & Elkins and thinking he would spend the other half of his legal career there. But six years later, another opportunity came knocking and gave him the chance to return to Indiana, taking a position at the place he had originally wanted to work.

On Oct. 1, 1999, Armitage took a position leading Eli Lilly’s intellectual property division. He served in that role until becoming general counsel in 2003.

His influence in the area is wide ranging: Armitage is a member and past president of the American Intellectual Property Law Association and the Association of Corporate Patent Counsel, and is also a past chair of the patent committee of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, the National Council of Intellectual Property Owners and National Inventors Hall of Fame Foundation. He is a leader in the American Bar Association’s Intellectual Property Section.

In 2010, American Lawyer ranked him among the top 25 IP attorneys in the country, in part because of his leadership in negotiating the Pathway to Biosimilars Act, legislation that created a way for generic biologic drugs to get approval.

Similar to other pharmaceutical companies, Armitage said, half the legal group at Eli Lilly focuses on patents while the other half is divided up between other topics the company might face. Responsible for $4 billion to $5 billion in research and development efforts annually, the company has about 40 patent lawyers and just as many working on the other issues. Armitage said Lilly has worked in recent years to establish a legal infrastructure outside the U.S. because of increasing globalization.

“You need a local legal infrastructure in place, but one that’s pretty well-wired together and has a global legal perspective to know what’s happening in other parts of the world,” he said.

Armitage travels the world going to conferences and also meeting with clients and attorneys associated with Lilly and others in the industry. A typical day defies the definition of “typical,” Armitage says, since it usually varies dramatically depending on continuing legal challenges and whatever the emerging legal issue of the day might be.

Mostly, he focuses on strategic legal environment issues – or whether better ways might exist for the civil justice system to work for the company, he said. That could include reviewing potential product liability issues, reviewing contracts and deciding what partnerships might be worth exploring.

He’s hit rough spots through the years, being the legal chief in charge of navigating the murky waters of pharmaceutical regulations, the patent system and the emerging biofuels industry. He was on the losing side in Lilly’s legal woes in 2000 when unsuccessfully attempting to retain U.S. patent protection on antidepressant Prozac, its top seller at the time. He’s been at the front line of mass liability lawsuits by patients and patent attacks from three generic drugmakers involving the drug Zyprexa, and he’s been a part of Lilly settling many lawsuits out of court. Armitage said patent challenges will likely continue in the years ahead as more of Lilly’s patents are set to expire and generate more generics.

“The past decade or so has seen some difficult challenges, but I’m still standing,” he said.

One of Armitage’s proudest moments came in September when he saw 30 years of his advocacy for patent reform become a reality.

After almost a decade of negotiations, this year Congress passed what is called the America Invents Act, described as the most sweeping patent reform in 60 years. The president signed the legislation in mid-September, with Eli Lilly chief executive officer John Lechleiter standing nearby. Armitage said he took personal pride in seeing that, especially after his decades of work on reform and testifying before Congress on the topic.

“I’ve been for three decades trying to clarify, modernize and simplify patent law,” he said. “One of the most gratifying things to me, now after 30 years of effort, is to have what I think is an amazingly improved patent law system that’s more transparent to the public. I’m proud of the U.S. for having what’s probably the best, and probably the first 21st century patent system in the world.”•
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  2. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  3. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

  4. "Meanwhile small- and mid-size firms are getting squeezed and likely will not survive unless they become a boutique firm." I've been a business attorney in small, and now mid-size firm for over 30 years, and for over 30 years legal consultants have been preaching this exact same mantra of impending doom for small and mid-sized firms -- verbatim. This claim apparently helps them gin up merger opportunities from smaller firms who become convinced that they need to become larger overnight. The claim that large corporations are interested in cost-saving and efficiency has likewise been preached for decades, and is likewise bunk. If large corporations had any real interest in saving money they wouldn't use large law firms whose rates are substantially higher than those of high-quality mid-sized firms.

  5. The family is the foundation of all human government. That is the Grand Design. Modern governments throw off this Design and make bureaucratic war against the family, as does Hollywood and cultural elitists such as third wave feminists. Since WWII we have been on a ship of fools that way, with both the elite and government and their social engineering hacks relentlessly attacking the very foundation of social order. And their success? See it in the streets of Fergusson, on the food stamp doles (mostly broken families)and in the above article. Reject the Grand Design for true social function, enter the Glorious State to manage social dysfunction. Our Brave New World will be a prison camp, and we will welcome it as the only way to manage given the anarchy without it.

ADVERTISEMENT