Intellectual property


Many healthcare industry participants invest substantial resources in developing innovative products and technologies. We evaluate the role of intellectual property rights in rewarding innovators and spurring innovation. Our professionals have been called upon to evaluate these issues and others in temporary and permanent injunction proceedings as consulting and testifying experts on such economic issues as irreparable harm, adequacy of monetary damages, balance of the burdens, and public interest. We also quantify the impact of alleged infringement in patent, trademark, and copyright cases by evaluating the competitive landscape and calculating but-for damages, price erosion, reasonable royalties, and future damages. In breach-of-contract claims, our clients count on us to exhaustively model but-for market share scenarios and calculate damages.

  • In Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., serving as a testifying expert on commercial success as an objective indicator of patent non-obviousness on behalf of plaintiff Purdue alleging patent infringement in connection with certain generic drug manufacturers’ Paragraph IV Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) concerning generic versions of Purdue’s Butrans® transdermal opioid pain medication. Provided expert reports and deposition testimony.
  • In Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Depomed, Inc., served as a testifying expert on commercial success as an objective indicator of patent non-obviousness on behalf of Petitioner Purdue’s Inter Partes Review (IPR) challenge to the validity of certain Depomed patents. Provided declaration and deposition testimony.
  • In Janssen Products, L.P. v. Lupin Limited, served as a testifying expert regarding commercial success as a secondary consideration of patent nonobviousness on behalf of plaintiff Janssen alleging patent infringement in connection with Paragraph IV ANDAs concerning generic versions of Janssen’s PREZISTA® HIV treatment prescription drug. Provided expert report and deposition testimony.
  • In Teva v. Amgen, supported Professor Tomas Philipson of The University of Chicago to evaluate economic issues related to the injunction sought by Amgen to prevent Teva from introducing its infringing drug, Neutroval, in the United States. Submitted an expert report that provided economic opinions concerning the application of the four factors identified in the US Supreme Court’s opinion in eBay v. MercExchange. Analysis addressed the economic incentives created by Medicare’s reimbursement policies and the long-run repercussions of Teva’s anticipated infringing sales. A court-approved settlement enjoined Teva from introducing Neutroval into the US until November 2013—only one month before the patents at issue will expire.
  • Provided written report, deposition, and hearing testimony on behalf of Amgen in Amgen v. F. Hoffman-La Roche to advise the court considering whether to grant a permanent injunction against F. Hoffman-La Roche’s sales and marketing of a product that infringes Amgen’s patents. Testimony focused on the implications of recently introduced Medicare reimbursement policies on competitive dynamics among drug manufacturers and the impact of the potential entry of F. Hoffman-La Roche’s product on Amgen, healthcare providers, Medicare, and third-party payers.
  • Evaluated the net benefits associated with granting patent term restoration for a brand-name pharmaceutical for which the US Patent and Trademark Office did not grant such extension. Our work resulted in a white paper that updated a previous CBO legislative scoring document. The analysis focused on the likely benefits associated with continued marketing and the resulting expanded use of the brand-name drug in terms of improved clinical outcomes relative to existing therapies.