Life Sciences Intellectual Property Litigation

Overview

Honigman’s Life Sciences Intellectual Property Litigation practice is comprised of experienced intellectual property litigators with extensive technical expertise and advanced degrees in chemistry, biochemistry, immunology, microbiology, and all engineering disciplines. Our lawyers know the science. 

We handle complex patent litigation encompassing pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices, and fine chemicals. Our attorneys have a proven track record litigating cases in district court and at the Federal Circuit. Additionally, our practitioners have extensive experience in high-stakes inter partes review (IPR) trials. Our litigators handled the very first IPR trials before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board in the pharmaceutical context. This involvement has given us direct knowledge of the most effective strategies for both patent owners and petitioners. 

Our representations in this field range from some of the world's largest pharmaceutical companies to biotechnology companies still in the development stage, as well as private equity and venture capital investors. We represent companies based in the United States, the United Kingdom, Europe, Canada and Asia.

Our attorneys have handled cases involving all aspects of the life sciences industry, including pharmaceuticals, biologics and biosimilars, medical devices, gene expression, protein synthesis, and antibody technology.

Clients choose Honigman because of the technical and scientific expertise of our nationally recognized attorneys. We offer biotechnology and pharmaceutical clients services that include:

  • Litigation services, including representation in Hatch-Waxman cases
  • Post-grant proceedings at the USPTO
  • Strategic advice
  • IP due diligence related to transactions

Representative Matters

  • Represented a branded pharmaceutical company in the first-ever successful defense of a pharmaceutical patent in an America Invents Act (AIA) review; after the oral hearing, the PTAB ruled that a generic challenger had not proven that claims in three related patents covering controlled release formulations were unpatentable for obviousness over the prior art
  • Represented a branded pharmaceutical company in an IPR where the validity of a patent covering an anti-nausea drug patent was challenged by a generic ANDA filer; after filing of the preliminary patent owner response, the PTAB decided not to review the patent
  • Representing a medical device company in district court litigation and in eight IPRs involving client’s patents covering medical imaging technology
  • Represented a branded pharmaceutical company in a district court ANDA patent litigation against multiple generic ANDA filers seeking to market a generic version of a small molecule drug used to treat the urologic condition, BPH; obtained judgment for client after bench trial
  • Represented a branded pharmaceutical company in a district court ANDA patent litigation against multiple generic ANDA filers seeking to market a generic version of the client’s dermatology drug
  • Represented a branded pharmaceutical company in a district court ANDA patent litigation against multiple generic ANDA filers seeking to market a generic version of the client’s antidepressant drug; obtained judgment for client after bench trial that was affirmed on appeal
  • Defended a biopharmaceutical company in a district court patent infringement litigation involving the client's humanized antibody drug for the treatment of a rare disease
  • Represented a pharmaceutical company in the first Federal Circuit appeal of a United States Patent and Trademark Office calculation of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA); obtained a favorable judgment securing additional “B Period” PTA for the client and future patent holders

News & Resources

Events

Publications