Below is a sampling of biotechnology matters we have handled.

Recent Representations:

• We represented Becton Dickinson, and Company (“BD”) in a pair of successful IPRs involving two patents owned by Sage Products relating to sterilized chlorhexidine gluconate formulations. In a pair of Final Written Decisions, the PTAB found in BD’s favor on all issues and fully resolved a parallel district court proceeding.  The Federal Circuit affirmed.
• At the ITC, we asserted Bio-Rad’s patents against 10X that covered the creation of single cell libraries using droplets. After a trial, the ITC Commission entered an injunction preventing 10X from supplying the accused products.  The Federal Circuit affirmed.
• We represent The Broad Institute, Inc. (“Broad”) in patent interference proceedings against the University of California, University of Vienna, and Emmanuelle Charpentier (“CVC”) defending the Broad’s patent rights covering fundamental CRISPR technology on which the Nobel Prize was awarded.
• We obtained for our clients Complete Genomics Institute (CGI) and Beijing Genomics Institute (BGI) what is believed to be the largest verdict ever for a Chinese affiliated company, by securing a jury verdict of $333.8 million dollars for Illumina’s willful infringement of two CGI patents on an improved DNA sequencing method. We also invalidated three sequencing patents Illumina asserted against BGI.  Illumina chose to satisfy the judgement rather than face the possibility of the damages being enhanced. 
• We represented DexCom in a global patent infringement dispute against Abbott Diabetes Care (“Abbott”) involving continuous glucose monitoring technology. To date, we prevailed on summary judgment and pretrial motions on key issues that narrowed Abbott’s defenses and eliminated Abbott’s claimed damages.  At a week-long jury trial in July 2023, we prevailed on a considerable majority of the claims Abbott challenged as being licensed.  The parties have since agreed to a global settlement of all outstanding patent disputes.  
• We represented Genevant as the patent owner in a declaratory judgment action filed by Acuitas Therapeutics, LLC, seeking a judgment that its licensees, Pfizer, Inc. and BioNTech S.E. do not infringe Genevant’s patents relating to the Pfizer and BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine. In May 2024 we succeeded on a motion to dismiss those declaratory judgment claims.
• We also represent Genevant as the plaintiff in a patent infringement suit against Pfizer, Inc. and BioNTech S.E. alleging that their Covid-19 vaccine infringes Genevant’s patents.
• We represent Jazz Pharmaceuticals (“Jazz”) in a patent infringement action against Almaject involving patent covering Jazz’s biologic product, Defitelio, which is a treatment for severe hepatic veno-occlusive disease.
• We represented Merck Sharp & Dohme (“Merck”) in district court and IPR proceedings against Genentech in a matter relating to Merck’s KEYTRUDA® product. In both matters, Merck challenged the validity of Genentech’s Cabilly patents, which relate to recombinant antibody technology before settling both the IPR and district court litigation.
• We represented Myriad Genetics in patent infringement litigation brought against its myRISK® brand tests for genetic mutations associated with an increased risk for cancer, obtaining a dismissal of all claims.
• We represented NantCell, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of ImmunityBio, Inc., and Immunotherapy NANTibody, LLC. The award was issued against Sorrento Therapeutics, Inc. in a hard-fought arbitration proceeding involving complex biotechnology issues. The dispute involved two Exclusive License Agreements providing for delivery to our clients of antibodies and antibody materials for use in developing cancer therapies. Our clients sought damages arising from allegations of Sorrento’s fraud and breach of obligations to provide bargained-for antibodies. The arbitrator issued a final award in the aggregate amount of $173.5 million, finding that Sorrento had breached both license agreements. In addition, the arbitrator determined our clients are entitled to declaratory relief that both license agreements remain in full force and effect with respect to ImmunityBio’s PD-L1 NK cell.
• We represented Natera in a patent infringement case in the Middle District of North Carolina against defendant NeoGenomics Laboratories (“NeoGenomics”) regarding NeoGenomics’ cancer diagnostic test, RaDaR. Within four months of filing suit, we obtained a preliminary injunction enjoining all making, use, sale, or offers to sell RaDaR, effective immediately. This is the first time a medical diagnostic has ever been enjoined through a preliminary injunction. We have since obtained a permanent injunction.
• We defended QIAGEN against charges that it infringed patents owned by Rutgers University covering immunologically based tests for detecting TB. After a claim construction hearing that went in QIAGEN’s favor, Rutgers decided to quickly settle the matter.
• We also represented QIAGEN in its defense against a patent infringement action brought by LabCorp and Massachusetts General Hospital. We recently secured a complete defense victory at the Federal Circuit, which found that QIAGEN did not infringe either of two patents directed to creating enriched genetic libraries used to detecting cancer mutations and gene fusion.
• We represent Sarepta Therapeutics (“Sarepta”) in a patent litigation involving Sarepta’s gene therapy product for the treatment of Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) in which plaintiffs sought over $900 million in damages. We won summary judgment of invalidity under Section 101 for lack of patent eligible subject matter of all asserted claims of the asserted patent.  The case is on appeal.
• We represent Tempus AI, Inc. (“Tempus”) in its defense against an action brought by Guardant Health, Inc. accusing Tempus’s cell-free DNA liquid biopsy tests used to treat and monitor cancer patients of patent infringement. We also represent Tempus in offensive litigation against Guardant Health alleging that Guardant’s platforms of oncology testing related products infringe Tempus’s patents.
• We represented Twist Bioscience (“Twist”) in its successful resolution of trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and breach of duty of loyalty cases Agilent filed attempting to stifle Twist’s cutting-edge synthetic DNA technology. We successfully negotiated a settlement resolving all claims.
• We represented Vizgen Inc. (“Vizgen”) in Massachusetts Ch. 93A and tortious interference litigation against the President and Fellows of Harvard College and 10x Genomics in a case concerning in-situ single-cell spatial transcriptomics tools. The dispute between 10x, Harvard, and Vizgen arose after Harvard had separately licensed patent portfolios to startup companies ReadCoor, Inc. (founded by Harvard Professor George Church) and Vizgen (founded by Harvard Professor Xiaowei Zhuang).  10x asserted certain patents against Vizgen, which Vizgen alleged was only made possible after Harvard expanded the scope of patent rights licensed to ReadCoor in 2020, shortly before ReadCoor was acquired by 10x.  The parties reached a global settlement after three days of trial in February 2025 in the District of Delaware.