Amanda Hollis, P.C.

In the Matter of Certain Non-invasive Aesthetic Body-contouring Devices, Components Thereof, and Methods Using Same (USITC): Lead Counsel representing a pharmaceutical company and its affiliates in a Section 337 investigation involving patents related to abdomen sculpting. The investigation was terminated in light of a settlement agreement.

Abbott Cardiovascular Systems, Inc., et al. v. Edwards Lifesciences: Represented the plaintiffs in this global litigation involving medical devices for the treatment of life threatening heart problems. Before this case reached a settlement, Amanda won key claim construction arguments in federal court and won denials of all five of her opponent’s inter partes review challenges to her client’s patents at the USPTO at the earliest and most difficult stage for such proceedings. At the time petitions like these were allowed to proceed to later stages more than 60% of the time on average, making Kirkland’s early, five-out-of-five victory a rare achievement.

Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories, et al: In a case where her opponent was seeking what could amount to hundreds of millions of dollars, Amanda achieved a total victory for Abbott Laboratories. In this long and hard-fought patent infringement case brought by Enzo Life Sciences in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Enzo accused hundreds of Abbott’s products of willful patent infringement, and sought both damages and a court order halting Abbott’s sales. The court concluded that Enzo’s patents were invalid. As a result, all of Enzo’s claims against Abbott were dismissed without the expense of a trial. Meanwhile, other companies represented by other lawyers settled by paying Enzo tens of millions of dollars so they wouldn’t face more litigation and damages exposure. Amanda was Abbott’s lead trial lawyer and argued the case.

Rembrandt Diagnostics, LP v. Alere, Inc., et al: Represented Alere subsidiary Innovacon in this breach of contract and patent litigation brought by Rembrandt Diagnostics in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California relating to drugs of abuse test devices. Rembrandt accused Innovacon of selling multiple products that infringe licensed patents and sought years of royalty damages. After taking this case over from another law firm, Amanda won a key Markman decision interpreting the asserted patent claims favorably for Innovacon. Amanda also got the other side to give up its claims against several of her client’s products. Amanda then won a jury verdict of noninfringement on all remaining claims, completing the victory for her client.

Every Penny Counts, Inc. v. Bank of America Corporation, et al: Represented Bank of America in patent infringement litigation brought by Every Penny Counts in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida involving the Bank’s Keep the Change® program. Won summary judgment that the asserted patent was invalid for lack of patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.

W.L. Gore & Associates Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al: Represented C.R. Bard and Bard Peripheral Vascular, Inc. in litigation brought by Bard’s longtime business competitor and litigation adversary W.L. Gore in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging the infringement of three patents on thin-wall stent grafts. Obtained a complete defense verdict for Bard on Gore’s claims of willful infringement. The jury delivered a verdict that Gore’s patent claims were not infringed by either of Bard’s FLUENCY® PLUS and FLAIR® stent graft products and were also invalid on three separate grounds (anticipation, obviousness, and incorrect inventorship). Prior to trial, uncovered and used documents not previously produced by the other side in discovery to show it was not entitled to certain lost profits type damages, knocking out more than $100 million of damages exposure.

Valeant Pharmaceuticals Luxembourg S.À.R.L., et al. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc: Represented Teva Pharmaceutical subsidiary Actavis in this brand-generic pharmaceutical patent litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey before Chief Judge Jose Linares. Valeant accused Actavis’s proposal to market a generic version of Carac® cream for the treatment of certain pre-cancerous and cancerous skin growths of infringing seventeen claims of a United States patent. After taking this case over from another firm, Amanda argued at the Markman hearing that all of the patent claims should be immediately invalidated without the expense of summary judgment proceedings or a trial on two independent grounds. The case subsequently settled on confidential terms.

Biscotti Inc. v. Microsoft Corp: Represented Biscotti, Inc. in multiple IPR challenges to its patent relating to videoconferencing technology brought by Microsoft In. Succeeded in defeating all of the challenges to dozens of Biscotti’s claims without making any claim amendments. As a result of the victory, client may be among the first patent owner to go to trial in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas on its patent infringement claims where the other party was precluded under 35 U.S.C. § 315 from challenging the validity of the asserted patent on certain grounds.

Aker BioMarine AS v. Neptune Technologies and Bioressources, Inc: Represented Aker BioMarine in a significant inter partes review of U.S. Patent No. 8,278,351 against patent owner and competitor Neptune Technologies & Bioresources. Obtained a decision that 26 claims were unpatentable.

LifeScreen Sciences LLC v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al: Represented C.R. Bard against LifeScreen Sciences, LLC and LifePort Sciences, LLC. LifeScreen accused Bard of infringing three patents for filters that are inserted into blood vessels to aid in catching clots and in a separate case LifePort accused Bard of infringing a patent relating to stent grafts for blood vessels. After obtaining a favorable ruling after a Markman hearing, convinced LifeScreen to drop one patent entirely, which claimed two Bard products infringed and drop infringement claims on one of two products accused of infringing a second patent. After pressure to drop the remaining patents from the case, the parties entered settlement and both cases were dismissed.

Neptune Technologies & Bioressources, Inc. v. Aker BioMarine ASA, et al: Represented Aker BioMarine in several patent infringement actions in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts and the International Trade Commission (ITC) involving Superba™ krill oil. Settled all actions favorably for Aker BioMarine shortly before trial.

Realtime Data, LLC d/b/a IXO v. Morgan Stanley, et. al: Represented ConvergEx in the Realtime Data LLC patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas and U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. Four months before trial, plaintiff gave up and dismissed its case against client with prejudice for no money. Other defendants remained in the case and faced demands for hundreds of millions of dollars on claims headed to trial. 

In re Innovatio IP Ventures, LLC, Patent Litigation: Represented Cisco Systems, Motorola Solutions, and others in complex and highly publicized multi-district litigation brought by Innovatio IP Ventures concerning patents alleged to be essential to IEEE 802.11 (Wi-Fi) technology.

Uship Intellectual Properties, LLC v. United States of America, et al: Represented IBM in patent infringement litigation brought in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims by UShip involving an Automated Postal Center used throughout the United States Postal System. UShip dropped five of its asserted patents during claim construction and, after claim construction, the remaining asserted patents were declared invalid as indefinite and not infringed.

Technology Patents LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG, et al: Represented Yahoo! in patent infringement litigation brought by non-practicing entity in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland involving SMS and Internet messaging. Won summary judgment of non-infringement.

Glaxo Group Limited v. Spectrum Pharmaceuticals Inc: Represented Spectrum Pharmaceuticals in ANDA litigation brought by Glaxo Group Limited in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware involving blockbuster migraine drug Imitrex®. Case settled favorably for Spectrum days before trial was scheduled to begin.

Nabi Biopharmaceuticals v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc: Represented Roxane Laboratories in ANDA litigation brought by Nabi Biopharmaceuticals in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio involving PhosLo®, a drug for the control of hyperphosphatemia in end stage renal failure. Case settled favorably for Roxane Laboratories after Markman hearing.

CryoLife, Inc. v. C.R. Bard, Inc., et al: Represented C.R. Bard, Davol and Medafor against CryoLife in a high-stakes declaratory judgment patent infringement action filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. CryoLife filed a complaint for declaratory judgment stating that CryoLife’s PerClot® product does not infringe Medafor’s patent for a chemical compound to put in a wound to enhance clotting in a variety of surgical procedures and seeking to invalidate Medafor’s patent. Obtained dismissal of Bard and Davol on jurisdictional grounds and won a rare preliminary injunction barring sales of CryoLife’s competitive PerClot® blood-clotting product. CryoLife appealed the preliminary injunction ruling. CryoLife then dropped its appeal and dropped its case entirely.

Represented Roxane Laboratories in ANDA litigation brought by Abbott Laboratories in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois involving antibiotic BIAXIN®. Case settled favorably for Roxane shortly after summary judgment motion was filed.

Represented Abbott in its $5.8 billion acquisition of Alere Inc.

Represented Teva Pharmaceuticals Industries Limited in its $6.8 billion acquisition of Cephalon, Inc.

Latham & Watkins, LLP