Overview
Innovation and intellectual property rights play a key role in the vitality of the healthcare and life sciences industries. Whether in the context of “Paragraph IV” generic entry, biosimilars, or medical devices, Bates White professionals have extensive experience analyzing relevant aspects of intellectual property disputes, including preliminary and permanent injunction analysis, commercial success, and damages. Our experts have testified in numerous high-profile intellectual property litigations on topics such as irreparable harm, public interest, commercial success, nexus, and reasonable royalties.
Selected Work
- In Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., served as a testifying expert on commercial success as an objective indicator of patent non-obviousness on behalf of plaintiff Purdue alleging patent infringement in connection with certain generic drug manufacturers’ Paragraph IV Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) concerning generic versions of Purdue’s Butrans® transdermal opioid pain medication.
- In Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Depomed, Inc., served as a testifying expert on commercial success as an objective indicator of patent non-obviousness on behalf of Petitioner Purdue’s inter partes review (IPR) challenge to the validity of certain Depomed patents.
- In Janssen Products, L.P. v. Lupin Limited, served as a testifying expert regarding commercial success as a secondary consideration of patent nonobviousness on behalf of plaintiff Janssen alleging patent infringement in connection with Paragraph IV ANDAs concerning generic versions of Janssen’s PREZISTA® HIV treatment prescription drug.
- In Teva v. Amgen, supported Professor Tomas Philipson of The University of Chicago to evaluate economic issues related to the injunction sought by Amgen to prevent Teva from introducing its infringing drug, Neutroval, in the United States.
- Provided written report, deposition, and hearing testimony on behalf of Amgen in Amgen v. F. Hoffman-La Roche to advise the court considering whether to grant a permanent injunction against F. Hoffman-La Roche’s sales and marketing of a product that infringes Amgen’s patents.
- Evaluated the net benefits associated with granting patent term restoration for a brand-name pharmaceutical for which the US Patent and Trademark Office did not grant such extension.