Bristol Myers Squibb Company Sprycel Patent Litigation — Represented BMS through a series of 14 district court cases against generic manufacturers across three jurisdictions regarding BMS’s Sprycel®—a cancer drug used to treat patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia and Philadelphia chromosome positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. These cases settled on favorable terms for BMS and enabled BMS to maintain exclusivity years beyond the expiration of the compound patent in 2020.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. [16 Defendants] — Representing Boehringer Ingelheim in Hatch-Waxman litigation filed against 16 defendants related to BI's Jardiance®, Glyxambi®, Synjardy®, and Synjardy® XR anti-diabetic tablets. Consent judgments have been entered against eight defendants, while proceedings remain ongoing as to the remaining defendants.
Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. [11 Defendants] — Representing Boehringer Ingelheim in Hatch-Waxman litigation filed against Mylan and Aurobindo related to BI’s Tradjenta® (linagliptin) anti-diabetic tablets.
Genentech, Inc. v. Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd. — Represented Samsung Bioepis in a patent infringement suit arising from an aBLA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a biosimilar version of Avastin® (bevacizumab), which is prescribed for the treatment of several kinds of cancer. Samsung Bioepis filed counterclaims of noninfringement and invalidity of the 14 asserted patents. Settlement achieved.
Amgen Inc. et al v. Samsung Bioepis Co. Ltd. et al. — Representing Samsung Bioepis in a BPCIA patent infringement action brought by Amgen regarding Samsung Bioepis’s proposed biosimilar version of Amgen’s Prolia® (denosumab). Samsung Bioepis filed counterclaims of noninfringement and invalidity of the 34 asserted patents. The case is ongoing.
Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. v. Janssen Biotech, Inc. — Represented Samsung Bioepis in an inter partes review proceeding against Janssen regarding Janssen’s Stelara®. Settlement achieved.
Onyx Therapeutics, Inc. v. InnoPharma Inc. — Representing InnoPharma in a patent infringement suit arising from InnoPharma’s submission of an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic carfilzomib product.
Aerie Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Gland Pharma Ltd., et al. — Represented Aerie in consolidated patent litigation brought against Gland Pharma, Orbicular Pharma, and Micro Labs, arising from the defendants' ANDAs to manufacture and market the generic versions of Rhopressa® (netarsudil) and Rocklatan® (netarsudil/latanoprost), which are ophthalmic solutions prescribed for patients with glaucoma and ocular hypertension. These cases settled on favorable terms for Alcon and are expected to enable Alcon to maintain exclusivity years beyond the expiration of the compound patent in 2030.
Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al v. Eagle Pharmaceuticals Inc. — Representing Eagle in a patent infringement suit arising from Eagle’s submission of an ANDA to the FDA seeking approval to manufacture and sell a generic vasopressin product.
Impax v. Lannett — Represented Impax Laboratories and AstraZeneca in District Court ANDA patent litigation related to nasal spray for treatment of migraines at trial, obtaining judgment that all asserted patent claims were valid and infringed, and successfully defended the District Court’s decision at the Federal Circuit.
Butamax Advanced Biofuels LLC v. Gevo, Inc. — Representing Butamax in a patent infringement litigation relating to genetically modified yeast for the production of isobutanol.
Bristol Myers Squibb v. Apotex — Represented BMS in Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation regarding a cancer drug used to treat patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia and Philadelphia chromosome positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. The case was resolved by settlement on favorable terms for BMS.
Pfizer v. Sandoz — Represented Plaintiffs in Hatch-Waxman patent litigation against Sandoz regarding a cancer drug indicated for the treatment of renal cell carcinoma. The case was resolved by settlement on favorable terms for Pfizer.
JobDiva v. Monster — Represented JobDiva in a multi-patent infringement action involving internet searching technology.
Other Matters
Dupont v. Kolon Industries — As a law clerk at Kim & Chang, performed legal research regarding Korean and American patent legal issues, and translated Korean patents to English for a multi-national patent litigation.
