WilmerHale's IP Litigation Practice features a premier litigation team backed by the academic and industry experience of more than 140 lawyers and technology specialists with scientific or technical degrees.

Named IP Litigation Department of the Year by The American Lawyer in 2014, our lawyers have tried major cases in federal district courts from coast to coast, the US International Trade Commission and Germany. We also regularly represent clients in patent appeals before the United States Supreme Court and the Federal Circuit.

Contacts

Sort By
Steinberg, Donald R.

Donald R. Steinberg

Chair, Intellectual Property Department

+1 617 526 6453 (t)

don.steinberg@wilmerhale.com

Pirozzolo, Lisa J.

Lisa J. Pirozzolo

Co-Chair, Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group

+1 617 526 6388 (t)

lisa.pirozzolo@wilmerhale.com

Selwyn, Mark D.

Mark D. Selwyn

Partner-in-Charge, Palo Alto Office

Co-Chair, Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group

+1 650 858 6031 (t)

mark.selwyn@wilmerhale.com

Experience

Recent achievements include:

CEPHALON, INC. V. WATSON PHARM., INC.
In February 2013, the Federal Circuit issued a favorable decision on behalf of our client Cephalon, reversing a district court decision invalidating two patents covering the company's cancer pain medication Fentora. In particular, the Federal Circuit found that the defendant, generic drug manufacturer Watson Pharmaceuticals (now Actavis), "failed as a matter of law to show with clear and convincing evidence that... Read More

VAILLANCOURT V. BECTON DICKINSON & CO.
In February 2013, WilmerHale obtained a significant victory for Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) in a patent reexamination when the US Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) denied a request for rehearing of an appeal decision in an inter partes reexamination, which had been decided in a manner favorable to BD. This case is the first time BD had used inter partes reexamination as a strategic IP procedure to assure freedom to operate in their desired syringe market.... Read More

CLASSEN IMMUNOTHERAPIES, INC. V. SOMAXON PHARMACEUTICALS
2:12-cv-06643-GAF-PLA, US District Court, Central District of California
In April 2013, the firm achieved victory when Judge Gary Allen Feess of the Central District of California dismissed Classen Immunotherapies, Inc.'s ("Classen") patent infringement claims against our client Somaxon Pharmaceuticals with prejudice. The two asserted Classen patents purport to claim methods of gathering, analyzing, and commercializing adverse event data.... Read More

CELLECTIS SA V. PRECISION BIOSCIENCES
In May 2013, WilmerHale secured a victory for client Precision BioSciences, Inc., a leader in the field of genome engineering, in a patent infringement lawsuit against Cellectis SA. A jury found that all of the claims of Cellectis' US Pat. No. 7,897,372 (the "'372 patent") that were asserted against Precision are invalid both as obvious and for failure to meet the written description requirement and... Read More

BRAINTREE LABORATORIES, INC. V. NOVEL LABORATORIES, INC.
3:11-cv-01341, US District Court, District of New Jersey
In June 2013, WilmerHale obtained a favorable final judgment in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey for Braintree Laboratories, Inc. (Braintree) in its patent infringement case against Novel Laboratories (Novel). The matter involved SUPREP ®—Braintree's small volume sulfate-based colonoscopy preparation product—and Novel's proposed plan to make a generic version of the drug.... Read More

ALTANA PHARMA AG AND WYETH V. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS
In June 2013, our client Pfizer (formerly Wyeth) announced a $2.15 billion settlement with Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, which occurred during the trial of Pfizer's and Nycomed's (formerly Altana Pharma AG, and now part of Takeda) claims for patent-infringement damages... Read More

MICROLINC V. INTEL
In July 2013, WilmerHale obtained a zero-dollar walk away settlement on behalf of our client Intel in a patent infringement suit brought by Microlinc, a patent troll, in the Eastern District of Texas. After eight years of litigation, four patent reexaminations, four judges, two lawsuits, and one decisive Markman order, we obtained a statement in the stipulation of dismissal that Microlinc was unable to assert any infringement based on the Court’s claim construction.

PERMOBIL, INC. V. PRIDE MOBILITY PRODUCTS CORP.
WilmerHale recently achieved a significant victory for client Permobil, Inc. in defense of claims of patent infringement asserted by Pride Mobility Products Corp. in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In April 2013, Pride filed suit against Permobil alleging infringement of certain claims of Pride's US Patent No. 8,408,343 (the "'343 patent") and... Read More

W.L. GORE & ASSOCIATES, INC. V. ATRIUM MEDICAL
On April 2012, W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. filed suit against our client Atrium Medical Corporation in the US District Court for the District of Arizona, asserting three patents related to stents covered with expanded polytetrafluoroethylene (ePTFE). During its previous litigation against Medtronic, Gore's counsel successfully persuaded the district court to adopt several claim constructions that were favorable for Atrium.... Read More

KODAK V. ALTEK CORPORATION
In October 2013, a jury in SDNY returned a verdict in favor of our client Kodak, resulting in a damages award of $75.8 million. Prior to trial, the Kodak team obtained summary judgment that Ricoh owed royalties on point and shoot cameras. On the eve of trial, Ricoh stipulated to $53 million in damages on point and shoot cameras.... Read More

PIECZENIK V. ASTELLAS PHARMA US, INC. ET AL.
In March 2012, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (J. Newman, J. Mayer, J. Plager) affirmed the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey's (J. Pisano) dismissal of patent infringement and RICO claims against our client, Medarex Inc., a subsidiary of Bristol-Myers Squibb Co., on grounds that the plaintiff failed to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6).... Read More

ST. CLAIR INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY CONSULTANTS, INC. V. RESEARCH IN MOTION, LTD.
In March 2012, WilmerHale obtained a significant victory on behalf of Research In Motion when the United States District Court for the District of Delaware granted a rare summary judgment of noninfringement in favor of RIM against St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants.... Read More

GENETIC TECHNOLOGIES LIMITED V. BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY
While GTG's motion for consolidation was pending before the MDL Panel, the PTO, in June 2012, granted an ex parte reexamination of the '179 Patent.... Read More

BROADCOM V. EMULEX
After securing favorable verdicts on two patents in 2011, the Broadcom-Emulex team followed up with a string of additional victories in 2012.... Read More

SIGNAL TECH, LLC V. ANALOG DEVICES
In May 2012, we succeeded in persuading Signal Tech LLC to dismiss its entire lawsuit against Analog Devices with prejudice for no money.... Read More

MBO LABORATORIES V. BECTON, DICKINSON & CO.
WilmerHale successfully represented Becton, Dickinson and Company (BD) in a suit alleging infringement of a patent pertaining to a type of safety needle.... Read More

 

Read about additional 2012 experience.

Publications & News

View

September 12, 2014

When Inter Partes Review Meets Hatch-Waxman Patents

An article by Christopher Noyes, Emily Whelan, Corinne Atton and Heather Petruzzi, published by Law360 as part of a series of articles authored by the firm on the topic of post-grant proceedings.

September 2, 2014

London-based Anthony Trenton Joins WilmerHale, Expanding the Law Firm’s International IP Litigation Capabilities

WilmerHale today announced that Anthony Trenton has joined the firm as a partner in its London office. Mr. Trenton is a highly regarded intellectual property litigator in the United Kingdom, who will continue the firm’s expansion of its intellectual property litigation practice in Europe.

August 28, 2014

LMG Life Sciences Honors Firm, Attorneys with Top Rankings for Third Consecutive Year

The 2014 edition of LMG Life Sciences has been released, and it includes the recognition of nine WilmerHale practice areas and 17 attorneys.

August 21, 2014

Choosing Patent Claims to Assert

An article by Evelyn Mak and Dennis Wang published in the August 21, 2014 edition of the Daily Journal.

August 15, 2014

Estoppel as Applied to and From Patent Office Post-Grant Proceedings

An article by Monica Grewal and Richard Crudo published in Bloomberg BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, Vol. 88, No. 1020.

August 14, 2014

Territoriality and Jurisdiction in EU IP Law

An article by Trevor Cook published in the July 2014 edition of Journal of Intellectual Property Rights, Vol. 19, pp. 293-297.

August 4, 2014

Technical and Scientific Experience

Our ability to provide superior legal representation to technology companies is greatly enhanced by the academic and industry experience of our lawyers in a wide variety of technical and scientific fields.    

July 17, 2014

WilmerHale and 17 Partners Rank in Managing IP’s 2014-2015 IP Stars Handbook

Managing IP has released its second annual edition of its IP Stars Handbook—a guide that identifies the leading IP firms and lawyers in the United States—prominently ranking WilmerHale and 17 of its partners.

July 8, 2014

WilmerHale is “Most-Favored IP Department” Among Clients and General Counsel According to BTI’s Latest Research

The BTI Consulting Group today released its newest report—BTI Intellectual Property Outlook 2015: Changes, Trends and Opportunities in IP & IP Litigation—an in-depth analysis of the intellectual property market that identifies WilmerHale as a standout among the leading law firms in the market.

July 7, 2014

Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Denied

WilmerHale compiles lists of certiorari petitions that raise patent-law issues. This page contains a consolidated list of all recently denied petitions, organized in reverse chronological order by date of certiorari petition.

Patent Cert. Petitions

WilmerHale compiles lists of certiorari petitions that raise patent-law issues. This page contains a consolidated list of all recently pending, granted and denied petitions, organized in each listing in reverse chronological order by date of certiorari petition.

Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Pending

Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Granted

Patent Law and the Supreme Court: Certiorari Petitions Denied

For more information on these petitions or other patent appeal matters, contact:

Joseph J. Mueller (+1 617 526 6396, joseph.mueller@wilmerhale.com)
Thomas G. Saunders (+1 202 663 6536, thomas.saunders@wilmerhale.com)
Leslie Pearlson (+1 617 526 6809, leslie.pearlson@wilmerhale.com)