Send to a friend

Raymond N. Nimrod is a partner in Quinn Emanuel's New York office.  He specializes in patent litigation and other technology-related cases. 

Mr. Nimrod has tried over 30 complex patent trials.  He has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in patent infringement trials.  He also has represented clients in trials relating to patent inventorship and ownership.  Mr. Nimrod has obtained eight-figure and nine-figure jury verdicts for his clients. 

Mr. Nimrod has extensive experience in initial case evaluation and assessment, development of case strategy and settlement options, all phases of discovery, Markman hearings, trial strategy development, trial, and post-trial proceedings and appeal.  He has resolved numerous patent cases successfully prior to trial by way of summary judgment or by way of settlement following favorable claim construction rulings or other pretrial proceedings.  He also has extensive experience conducting arbitrations and mediations for his clients.

Mr. Nimrod has represented clients in a wide range of industries including pharmaceuticals, polymers, medical devices, biotechnology, laser-eye surgery devices, chemical catalysts, plastics, computer software and hardware, and electronics.  Representative clients that he has represented include Johnson & Johnson, The Dow Chemical Company, Merck & Co., Phillips Petroleum, Union Carbide, and Medtronic.

Representation of The Dow Chemical Company in infringement action involving patents relating to next generation ethylene polymers.  Obtained a jury verdict in Dow’s favor and entry of a $76 million judgment.

Representation of Johnson & Johnson subsidiary in inventorship dispute relating to new biological drugs for the production of red blood cells.  The dispute included lawsuits in Germany and the United States and culminated in a major multi-year arbitration.  After thirty-four days of testimony over eight months, the arbitration panel ruled in favor of the J&J subsidiary.

Representation of Merck in infringement action to prevent launching of generic version of a Merck antibiotic.  Obtained claim construction ruling favorable to Merck on all issues, thereby eliminating primary defense of non-infringement and leading to settlement of case shortly thereafter.

Representation of Union Carbide in a case involving Union Carbide's patent on catalysts for making ethylene oxide.  Obtained a jury verdict in favor of Union Carbide and entry of a $153 million damages award.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment in Union Carbide’s favor and reversed a pre-trial ruling adverse to Union Carbide that had limited the scope of damages presented to the jury.  The favorable appellate ruling exposed the defendant to substantially higher damages and the case settled shortly thereafter. 

Representation of Critikon in a patent infringement action involving safety catheters designed to prevent accidental needle sticks.  Obtained judgment of infringement and injunction against infringing products.

Representation of Ethicon in patent infringement actions involving endoscopic surgical devices, surgical staplers and breast biopsy devices.  

Representation of Dow AgroSciences in a case filed by Cargill alleging that Dow AgroSciences infringed four patents relating to a new type of canola oil that largely eliminates trans-fats in foods.  Dow Agrosciences obtained summary judgment of invalidity before trial for the two most commercially-significant Cargill patents.  After trial, the district court held that Cargill committed inequitable conduct in obtaining the two remaining patents, thereby rendering them unenforceable.  The district court's opinion was subsequently affirmed on appeal by the Federal Circuit. 

Representation of Alza Corporation against a charge that its cancer chemotherapy drug, Doxil®, infringed the plaintiff’s patent.  Obtained a favorable Markman ruling, and the court consequently disposed of the infringement issues in the case in Alza’s favor on summary judgment.

Representation of Alza Corporation in an inventorship dispute over the inventorship and ownership of the patent on drug delivery vehicle for the chemotherapy agent, Doxil®.  One of the founders of the company that developed Doxil® claimed that he and the other plaintiff were the true inventors of the drug delivery vehicle. The plaintiffs sought ownership of the patent and unjust enrichment damages of over $90 million.  In a bench trial in the Northern District of California, the district court ruled for Alza and its inventors on all issues.

Representation of Dow in a patent infringement suit brought by Montell seeking hundreds of millions of dollars in damages for Dow’s use of a claimed catalyst system.  Montell alleged that Dow used the catalyst system in connection with Dow’s annual production of billions of pounds of linear low density polyethylene.  After depositions of Montell’s key scientists in Italy on inequitable conduct issues, Dow was able to achieve a highly favorable settlement before trial.

Representation of Dow in a patent infringement action brought by Exxon in the Eastern District of Texas to enjoin Dow from manufacturing its metallocene-based polymers.  In this matter, Exxon brought in four law firms to litigate the case against Dow.  After a two-week bench trial, the district court ruled that Dow did not infringe Exxon’s basic patent on this technology.

Representation of Dow in the U.S. Patent Office in several interferences declared between Dow’s inventors and Exxon’s inventors relating to metallocene catalyst technology and metallocene-based polymers.  The parties had collectively spent hundreds of millions of dollars to develop these technologies.  The interferences included testimony periods involving dozens of witnesses.  Dow obtained favorable rulings in the interferences. 

Representation of Dow in an action brought by Dow against Exxon for declaratory judgment that Exxon’s patent relating to wire and cable was invalid and that Exxon engaged in unfair competition by asserting the patent in the marketplace against Dow’s customers.  During discovery in the proceeding, Dow obtained from Exxon a covenant not to sue Dow or any of its customers.  The court thereafter dismissed Dow’s unfair competition claim, stating that Dow had no basis to pursue its claim.  Dow achieved a reversal of the district court’s decision in an appeal to the Federal Circuit.

Representation of Johnson & Johnson’s McNeil Laboratories in a seven-week jury trial in an action asserting that Bayer’s new analgesic gelcap product infringed McNeil’s patent.  McNeil prevailed in the trial and obtained an injunction leading to the removal of Bayer’s product from the market.

Representation of Medtronic in an appeal to the Federal Circuit after the district court entered judgment that Medtronic infringed Bard’s patent directed to a blood filter used in heart bypass surgery.  The Federal Circuit ruled in Medtronic’s favor, remanding the case for further proceedings. During the trial on remand, Medtronic established non-infringement through cross-examination of Bard’s own technical experts, without Medtronic presenting any witness on the issue.  Medtronic obtained a jury verdict of non-infringement and final judgment in its favor.

Representation of McNeil and Johnson & Johnson in an action in which Richardson-Vicks asserted a patent against McNeil and Johnson & Johnson for an analgesic product.  In this pre-KSR case, the district court entered judgment of obviousness in favor of defendants, despite a jury verdict of non-obviousness and despite the patent owner’s evidence of synergistic effects.