Christopher T. Jagoe

Pharmaceutical Industry Matters — Represented patentees in cases involving original patents on DPP-IV enzyme inhibitors for treatment of type-II diabetes; and patents directed to anti-CD38 antibodies for treatment of multiple myeloma and other cancers. Represented defendants in cases involving patents directed to crystalline polymorphs, transdermal delivery of anti-Parkinson’s disease drugs; and ophthalmic compositions containing NSAIDs.

Butamax v. Gevo — Represented Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC against plaintiff Gevo, Inc.’s claims that Butamax infringed a patent related to decarboxylase enzymes used in the production of biofuels. Mr. Jagoe successfully argued a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of the asserted patent that ended the case.

Butamax v. Gevo — Represented Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC against plaintiff Gevo, Inc.’s claims that Butamax infringed a patent related to iron regulation and transcription factors used in the production of biofuels. Mr. Jagoe successfully argued a motion for summary judgment of non-infringement of the asserted patent that ended the case.

Invista v. Dupont — Represented Dupont in a set of contract and patent disputes related to the manufacture and use of nylon and related polymers.

ARIAD v. Eli Lilly — Represented ARIAD Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, The Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research, and The President and Fellows of Harvard College, in their lawsuit against Eli Lilly and Company (“Lilly”), claiming infringement of their pioneering U.S. patent covering methods of treating human disease by regulating NF-kB cell-signaling activity. The jury in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts ruled unanimously in favor ARIAD et. al., finding the patent was valid and infringed by Lilly’s osteoporosis drug, Evista®, and septic shock drug, Xigris® and awarded damages of approximately $65.2 million plus future damages on an ongoing basis through the patent expiration date in 2019.

Pfizer v. Teva — Represented Pfizer against Teva Pharmaceuticals in an ANDA litigation where a federal court in the District of New Jersey (Newark) upheld the three main U.S. patents covering Celebrex, the company’s selective non-steroidal anti-inflammatory (NSAID) medicine used to treat pain and inflammation. The patents had been challenged by generic manufacturer Teva Pharmaceuticals USA. The district court ruled that the patents covering the active ingredient, pharmaceutical composition and method of use for Celebrex are valid, enforceable and infringed by the generic manufacturer’s product.

Amgen v. Hoffmann-La Roche — Represented Hoffman La Roche in a patent infringement action brought by Amgen and tried before a jury in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts relating to Roche’s new synthetic drug for treating anemia. On September 15, 2009, the Federal Circuit affirmed in part and reversed and remanded in part the district court's ruling in favor of Amgen and the two companies subsequently entered into a settlement agreement.

Bayer CropScience v. Dow AgroSciences and Pioneer Hi-Bred International — Defended Pioneer (a Dupont Company) against plaintiff Bayer’s claims of infringement of several patents related to insect resistant crops where the district court found the asserted patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The decision was later affirmed on appeal.