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. The following is a summary of exemplary representations.

Cases for Patent Owners:

  • We are lead trial counsel to a major pharmaceutical company in three Hatch-Waxman patent infringement actions related to our client’s blockbuster anti-psychotic drug. Each of the three generic drug makers filed ANDA applications with the FDA seeking to launch generic versions of our client’s drug before the expiration of the patent covering the drug.  Our client filed complaints asserting infringement of the patent.  The three lawsuits, which have now been consolidated, are pending in the District of New Jersey.
  • We are representing a leading pharmaceutical company for patent infringement in two related cases in the District of New Jersey. A generic company filed ANDA applications with the FDA seeking to launch their generic versions of a drug marketed by our client. These filings were acts of infringement of several patents held by our client. Our client had previously sued the generic pharmaceutical companies in fifteen related cases and all of them were resolved through settlement.
  • We successfully represented a global chemical company in its assertion of two patents directed to broad-spectrum fungicides against several entities involved in the importation of infringing product.  After we defeated defendants’ petition for inter partes review (IPR), the defendants ceased importation of the infringing product. 
  • 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 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 represented the manufacturer of blood glucose monitoring systems in two cases asserting infringement of our client’s patents on systems used by diabetics to monitor their blood glucose levels. Both cases settled on favorable terms.
  • 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 are defending a leading global provider of soda ash and its foreign affiliates against accusations of patent infringement in an action brought in the District of Delaware concerning the importation of allegedly infringing soda ash into the United States.
  • After a non-practicing entity enforced its patent on contact lenses against our client’s competitors, we won two jury verdicts in the Middle District of Florida that our client did not infringe the patent. The first jury verdict came in 2012 and the second, after a remand for a retrial, in 2017.
  • We are representing a medical device manufacturer in a case in the Western District of Texas, alleging infringement of a patent on drug eluting sutures. 
  • 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.