Practice Area

Patent Litigation

Life Sciences/Pharmaceutical

Patterson Belknap’s attorneys are deeply involved in the complex issues facing the life sciences and pharmaceutical industries. Our patent practice includes highly experienced trial attorneys with extensive technical knowledge in the field. For example:

Cases for Patent Owners:

  • We successfully represented a major pharmaceutical company in a Hatch-Waxman case in the District of New Jersey against three manufacturers of generic drugs. The case involved our client’s blockbuster treatment for HIV/AIDS. After discovery, the defendants withdrew their challenge to validity and infringement for patents on the drug molecule and methods of its use. In addition, the district court granted our motion for summary judgment that the defendants infringe patents on methods of manufacture and a crystal form of the drug. Following trial, the district court rejected the defendants’ validity defenses and entered judgment in our client’s favor on all issues on all of the asserted patents.
  • We represent a major pharmaceutical company in one of the first cases under the legislation for biosimilars (BPCIA) and the first involving an antibody product. The case is currently pending in the District of Massachusetts. In addition, the biosimilar manufacturer had brought a declaratory judgment action in the Southern District of New York in an attempt to bypass the BPCIA’s litigation provisions while obtaining the benefit of its regulatory framework. We successfully obtained dismissal of that action.
  • We successfully represented a pharmaceutical company in a Hatch-Waxman case in the District of Delaware against a generic manufacturer seeking FDA approval for a generic version of our client’s migraine medication. We obtained a favorable claim construction, leading the defendant to stipulate to infringement. After trial, the district court rejected defendant’s invalidity defense and entered judgment for our client.
  • We represent the manufacturer of blood glucose monitoring systems in two cases alleging infringement of our client’s patents on systems used by diabetics to monitor their blood glucose levels. The cases are currently pending in the Northern District of California and the Western District of North Carolina.
  • We successfully represented a major pharmaceutical company in a Hatch-Waxman action in the District of Delaware against a generic manufacturer, which sought approval to sell a generic version of our client’s drug for the treatment of heartburn. The court ruled in our client’s favor, rejecting its competitor’s invalidity and inequitable conduct defenses.
  • We represented a leading pharmaceutical company in a Hatch-Waxman action against manufacturers who sought to market generic versions of a multi-billion dollar antipsychotic drug. Following a bench trial in the District Court of New Jersey, the court enjoined the generic manufacturers from selling any product until the patent expired. The Federal Circuit affirmed this injunction without opinion one day after hearing oral argument.
  • We won a jury verdict in the Northern District of Illinois in favor of a major pharmaceutical company in a case involving its patents on biodegradable polymers in an injection for drug delivery. After a bench trial on inequitable conduct, the court rejected defendant’s inequitable conduct defense. The case then settled on favorable terms.
  • In a case in the District of Vermont, the court ruled in favor of our client, a pharmaceutical and medical device manufacturer: the case involved polymers used in administering drugs over time for delivery by skin absorption. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
  • We obtained summary judgment of infringement in favor of our client, a leading pharmaceutical company, in a case in the Northern District of Ohio involving its patents on time-release polymers in an injection; we then won a jury verdict upholding the validity of our client’s patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
  • We represented a pharmaceutical and healthcare company in a series of cases against companies that sought to introduce generic versions of its drug for lowering cholesterol. The cases settled after decisions in our client's favor denying defendants' motions for summary judgment.

Cases for Accused Infringers:

  • We won a jury verdict in the Middle District of Florida that our client did not infringe a patent on a contact lens. The district court upheld the verdict and, as a further basis for the judgment, relied on our cross-examination of the patentee’s expert as a basis for striking his testimony and further held that without that testimony the patentee lacked evidence needed to prove infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of noninfringement in our client’s favor.
  • We successfully represented a medical device manufacturer in the District of Delaware in a patent case concerning a drug’s mechanism of action. The court granted our motion for summary judgment of noninfringement based on a series of antibody tests.
  • We successfully defended a major U.S. manufacturer of household products in a case in the District of New Jersey involving patents on toothpaste. Following a bench trial, the district court ruled that the patents-in-suit were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct, declared the case exceptional, and awarded attorney fees of $1.2 million in our client's favor. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
  • We successfully represented a Fortune 50 pharmaceutical company in a multi-district litigation in the District of Massachusetts concerning the validity of a University patent relating to early biotechnology techniques.
  • We defended a pharmaceutical company in a case in the Northern District of Illinois where our client was accused of infringing a patent on polymeric drug delivery systems. The case settled on terms favorable to our client after cross-examination of plaintiff's expert witness.