Representative Cases

  • Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. et al. v. Mylan Inc., No. 2:07-cv-04661 (D.N.J.) and Nos. 2012-1272 and 2013-1164, 748 F.3d 1326 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (represented generic in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving patents for ibandronate (Boniva®); prevailed on summary judgment of obviousness—Federal Circuit affirmed).
  • Warner Chilcott v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., No 1:08-cv-00627 (D. Del.) and Nos. 2014-1439 and -1446, 594 F. App’x 630 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (represented generic in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving patents for risedronate (Actonel®); prevailed on summary judgment of obviousness—Federal Circuit affirmed; defeated plaintiffs’ motion for injunction pending appeal; and defeated plaintiffs’ emergency motion to Federal Circuit for injunction).
  • Yamauchi Corp. v. Albany Int’l Corp., No. 6:13-cv-2905 (D.S.C.) (favorable settlement after prevailing on important claim terms at Markman hearing).
  • Shire LLC v. Mickle & KemPharm, Inc., No. 10-cv-00434 (W.D. Va.) (favorable settlement of action concerning allegations of breach of employment agreement, assignment agreements concerning biopharmaceutical patents, and settlement agreement, as well as tortious interference with those agreements).
  • B. Braun Med. Inc. v. Abbott Labs., Nos. 96-1508, 96-1525, 124 F.3d 1419 (Fed. Cir. 1997) (successful at Federal Circuit with holdings that district court’s jury instruction on patent misuse was “legally erroneous” and patent misuse defense was not convertible to an affirmative damages claim by restyling it as a declaratory judgment counterclaim).
  • Pfizer Inc v. F&S Alloys and Minerals Corp., No. 93 Civ. 7160, 856 F. Supp. 808 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) (first court ruling that a patentee had satisfied the 35 U.S.C. § 295 presumption that an imported product was made by an infringing process).
  • Burns v. Connecting Open Time, LLC, No. 2:17-cv-840 (D. Ariz.) (consent judgment entered in Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act case vitiating underlying Uniform Dispute Resolution Policy ruling (represented by different counsel) and returning domain name to plaintiff).
  • Sage Prods., Inc. v. Skil-Care Corp., No. 11-cv-1616 (N.D. Ill.) (favorable settlement in trade dress case).
  • Tian Yi Tong Investments, Ltd. v. Air Austral, No. 09-CV-00745 (D. Colo.) (prevailed in Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act case involving First Amendment issues).