As a life sciences company, your intellectual property is your most valuable asset—it’s what propels your growth, drives your success and sets you apart from competitors. But it may also be your most vulnerable asset.
How you commercialize your innovation and gain compliance is crucial for the success of your business. As competitors constantly work to capture your share of the market, it is imperative that your IP is protected to maximize its value.
Our more than 135 multidisciplinary life sciences lawyers are here to help. In addition to legal experience spanning the world’s foremost life sciences companies to its most innovative startups, the majority of our IP lawyers hold advanced degrees in the life sciences fields. Our institutional qualifications, coupled with real-world experience on almost 1,000 patent and trademarks annually, uniquely position McDermott to anticipate change and adapt quickly to take advantage of opportunity, so you can focus on achieving your mission.
We provide the full array of services to protect and leverage your IP assets:
Patent and trademark protection
Infringement, validity and freedom-to-operate opinions
Novartis Vaccines, the pharmaceutical company’s division that provides more than 20 products to fight vaccine-preventable viral and bacterial disease, in obtaining summary judgment. We served as lead counsel for the case, which was an action under 28 USC 146 for district court review of an interference decision by the Board of Patent and Trademark Appeals. AlphaVax, Inc. v. Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc., Case No. 1-09-cv-11176 (District of Massachusetts).
Ambry Genetics in its successful defense against a 16-patent suit and a preliminary injunction, which led to the subsequent defeat of Myriad Genetics’ 15-year patent-protected monopoly on BRCA gene testing, a process that assesses a woman’s risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer. University of Utah Research Foundation et al. v. Ambry Genetics Corporation, Case No. 2-13-cv-00640-RJS (District of Utah). Six of those patents to stop Ambry resulted in a Federal Circuit opinion, In Re Brca1- and Brca2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation.
Seikagaku Corporation and Zimmer in securing a verdict of non-infringement on all asserted claims in a case filed by Genzyme Corporation. Genzyme filed a lawsuit against Seikagaku and Zimmer alleging that Seikagaku’s product, Gel-One®, distributed by Zimmer, infringed Genzyme’s patent related to the method of using a single injection of hyaluronic acid to treat osteoarthritis of the knee. Genzyme Corp. v. Seikagaku Corp., et al., Case No. 1-11-cv-10636-DPW (District of Massachusetts).
Tolmar and Sandoz in a complete victory in a patent infringement case under the Hatch-Waxman Act involving a generic substitute of Dovonex®, a $100 million-per-year branded medication for treatment of a skin condition known as psoriasis. LEO Pharma A/S v. Tolmar Inc., Case No. 1-10-cv-00269 (District of Delaware).
Biomet (k/n/a Zimmer Biomet) in a favorable settlement of a 15-patent infringement involving spinal, hip and knee implants and surgical methods brought by non-practicing entity, Bonutti Skeletal Innovations, a subsidiary of Acacia. Biomet Inc. v. Bonutti Skeletal Innovations LLC, Civil Case No. 13-00176-JVB-CAN (in the Northern District of Indiana).
Ciba Vision, the eye care division of Novartis, in a two-week trial involving false advertising regarding the degree of oxygen-permeability of contact lenses. Johnson & Johnson Vision Corp. v. Ciba Vision Corp., Civil Action No. 4-cv-07369 (Southern District of New York).
Depomed, a specialty pharmaceutical company focused on developing and commercializing products to treat pain and other central nervous system conditions, in successful outcomes in multiple matters, including:
A seven-day bench trial involving 29 patent claims from seven patents where the court ruled that the opposing party could not market the generic drug until the expiration date of the last patents-in-suit in February 2024. Depomed, Inc. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC et al., Case No. 3-12-cv-01358 (District of New Jersey).
The first Hatch-Waxman generic drug litigation case in the Northern District of California. We helped the client prevail on all 10 claim construction issues presented to the court. Depomed, Inc. v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.
Hanmi Pharmaceutical, South Korea-based pharmaceutical products manufacturer, in a landmark victory, the first US litigation victory for a Korean pharmaceutical company under the Hatch-Waxman Act, before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Ion Beam Applications (IBA), which develops, manufactures and supports medical devices and software solutions for cancer treatment, in the defense of a four-patent suit on proton therapy systems. McDermott won summary judgment of patent and non-patent issues on behalf of IBA, and settled on the remaining minor issues in advance of trial.
Kythera Biopharmaceuticals in its successful trademark infringement suit which sought a permanent injunction. Lithera moved to dismiss the action on the ground that Kythera’s trademark registration for “Kythera” was invalid because Kythera had not yet commenced selling the drug; it was still conducting trials for FDA approval. The court rejected Lithera’s motion in a lengthy published opinion by Chief Judge Lew. Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lithera, Inc., 998 F. Supp. 2d 890. (Kythera Biopharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Lithera, Inc., Case No. cv 13-6338 RSWL (SSx)) (Central District of California).