• 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).

Show Less