Below is a sampling of biotechnology matters we have handled.

For further information, contact either of our co-chairs, David Bilsker or Ray Nimrod.

• We obtained for our clients Complete Genomics Institute (CGI) and Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI) what is believed to be the largest verdict ever for a Chinese affiliated company, by securing a jury verdict of $333.8 million dollars for Illumina’s willful infringement of two CGI patents on an improved DNA sequencing method. We also invalidated three sequencing patents Illumina asserted against BGI.  Illumina chose to satisfy the judgement rather than face the possibility of the damages being enhanced. 
• As lead counsel for The Broad Institute, Inc. (“Broad”) in patent interference proceedings against the University of California, University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (“CVC”) we secured the Broad’s patent rights covering fundamental CRISPR technology on which the Nobel Prize was awarded. The Federal Circuit affirmed the findings on appeal.  The press has reported this as “an action that could roil a patent market worth billions of dollars.” 
• Our attorneys successfully enforced Lexicon Genetics patents covering methods for creating knock out mice, for which Mario Capecchi and Oliver Smithes, won the Nobel Prize in Medicine.
• We obtained after a six-day jury trial, a $50 million dollar verdict for past damages and a 6% royalty going forward for Shelbyzyme in a patent infringement dispute involving recombinant DNA technology for the treatment of Fabry disease.
• At the ITC, we asserted Bio-Rad’s patents against 10X that covered the creation of single cell libraries using droplets. After a trial, the ITC Commission entered an injunction preventing 10X from supplying the accused products.  
• We represented Genentech in a patent case involving HCMV enhancer technology in which plaintiff sought $1.6 billion in damages. After obtaining a writ of mandamus from the Federal Circuit transferring the action from the Eastern District of Texas to Northern California, we won summary judgment of non-infringement of all asserted claims on the two patents asserted by plaintiff.
• We represented Twist Bioscience in its successful resolution of trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and breach of duty of loyalty cases Agilent filed attempting to stifle Twist’s cutting-edge synthetic DNA technology.
• We acted as counsel for Roche against Stanford University in a case involving HIV diagnostic test kits and ownership of patent rights to those kits. After the lower courts awarded ownership of the rights to Roche, the Supreme Court affirmed the result in what has become the leading case on patent ownership when an employee works on an invention while at two different institutions. 
• We represented Ortho-McNeil, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, in an inventorship dispute relating to new biological drugs for the production of red blood cells. After thirty-four days of trial, we obtained a ruling in favor of Ortho McNeil.
• We represented Life Technologies, a subsidiary of Thermo Fisher Scientific, in patent infringement litigation brought against its DNA sequencing systems and consumables, obtaining a dismissal of all claims, with prejudice.
• We represented Bio-Rad and ARUP in a patent action involving genetic testing for iron disorders. After obtaining summary judgement of non-infringement, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgement in a precedential decision.
• We represented Johnson & Johnson subsidiary ALZA in a patent inventorship dispute in which two individuals claimed that they were the inventors of an ALZA patent covering liposomes used for the targeted delivery of pharmaceuticals. After a one-week bench trial, the district court rejected the claim of inventorship and entered judgment in favor of ALZA.
• We defended QIAGEN against charges that it infringed patents owned by Rutgers University covering immunologically based tests for detecting TB. After a claim construction hearing that went in QIAGEN’s favor, Rutgers decided to quickly settle the matter.
• We represented Genentech and won summary judgment of non-infringement on all claims of two patents asserted by Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland against two highly successful anti-cancer products. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
• We represented Myriad Genetics in patent infringement litigation brought against its myRISK® brand tests for genetic mutations associated with an increased risk for cancer, obtaining a dismissal of all claims.
• We represented Natera against CareDX in a case involving two of Natera’s key patents covering its cell-free DNA testing technology. Natera asserted that CareDx, a competitor in the cell-free DNA transplant testing space, infringed those patents through the use and sale of its AlloSure and AlloSeq cfDNA products.  A Delaware jury found that CareDx infringed one of the asserted patents and upheld the validity of both asserted patents, awarding Natera about $96 million in compensation. 
• We also represented Natera in a patent infringement case in the Middle District of North Carolina against defendant NeoGenomics Laboratories (“NeoGenomics”) regarding NeoGenomics’ cancer diagnostic test, RaDaR. Within four months of filing suit, we obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining all making, use, sale, or offers to sell RaDaR, effective immediately. This is the first time a medical diagnostic has ever been enjoined through a preliminary injunction.
• We achieved a victory for Hangzhou DAC Biotech Ltd., a biotechnology company specializing in antibody-drug conjugate technology, before the PTAB.
• We achieved a complete victory for Chiesi, regarding a generic challenge by Aurobindo to Chiesi’s Cleviprex® (clevidipine) pharmaceutical product. The Northern District of New Jersey found that Chiesi prevailed and all three patents were infringed, valid, and enforceable.  As such, Aurobindo will be enjoined from coming to market until October 2031.
• We represented Becton Dickinson, and Company (“BD”) in a pair of successful IPRs involving two patents owned by Sage Products relating to sterilized chlorhexidine gluconate formulations. In a pair of Final Written Decisions, the PTAB found in BD’s favor on all issues and fully resolved a parallel district court proceeding.
• We represent Sarepta Therapeutics in a patent litigation involving Sarepta’s gene therapy product for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) in which plaintiffs sought over $900 million in damages. We won summary judgment of invalidity under Section 101 for lack of patent eligible subject matter of all asserted claims of the asserted patent.  The case is on appeal.
• We represented Pfizer, Inc. against Amgen over the ownership rights to patents covering monoclonal antibodies that were disputed because a third-party vendor switched the parties’ samples.
• We represent NexBio (now Ansun Biopharma) in the California Superior Court San Diego in an ongoing breach of fiduciary duty and trade secret misappropriation dispute involving a treatment for flu.
• We represent Merck Sharp & Dohme in district court and IPR proceedings against Genentech in a matter relating to Merck’s KEYTRUDA® product. In both matters, Merck is challenging the validity of Genentech’s Cabilly patents, which relate to recombinant antibody technology.
• We are representing Genevant as the patent owner in a declaratory judgment action filed by Acuitas Therapeutics, LLC, seeking a judgment that its licensees, Pfizer, Inc. and BioNTech S.E. do not infringe Genevant’s patents relating to the Pfizer and BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine. We also are representing Genevant as the plaintiff in a patent infringement suit against Pfizer, Inc. and BioNTech S.E. alleging that their Covid-19 vaccine infringes Genevant’s patents.
• We represent DexCom in a global patent infringement dispute against Abbott Diabetes Care (“Abbott”) involving continuous glucose monitoring technology. To date, we prevailed on summary judgment and pretrial motions on key issues that narrowed Abbott’s defenses and eliminated Abbott’s claimed damages.  At a week-long jury trial in July 2023, we prevailed on a considerable majority of the claims Abbott challenged as being licensed.  DexCom’s affirmative patent infringement case will proceed to trial.