skip to main content

We are fortunate to advise world-class, industry-leading companies, helping them tackle novel, complex issues and push the boundaries of technological progress. Our ability and confidence to go to trial is our core strength; our deep bench of experienced trial lawyers represents companies in their most significant matters, helping them protect their intellectual property and launch products. Our lawyers pair extensive experience in the courtroom and the boardroom with a thorough understanding of science and technology.

Representative Engagements

In addition to their legal prowess, Paul, Weiss intellectual property lawyers are well-versed in the advanced scientific and technical aspects surrounding patent law. Recent client matters have included representing:

  • Amgen Inc., a leading biotechnology pharmaceutical company, in:
    • litigation, including the first two challenges to the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), in which generic drug makers Sandoz and Apotex sought FDA approval of “biosimilar,” or biologically similar medical therapies, of Amgen products;
    • an appeal regarding a dispute with generic drug maker Hospira over the information-exchange provisions of the BPCIA;
    • multiple litigations against companies seeking to make biosimilar versions of Amgen’s innovative products, including:
      • litigation against rival Coherus BioSciences regarding Coherus’ application to market a biosimilar of Amgen’s Neulasta®, a post-chemotherapy drug;
      • litigation in the Western District of Pennsylvania regarding generic drug maker Mylan’s biosimilar of Amgen’s Neulasta®;
      • litigation in the District of New Jersey regarding biosimilar drug maker Adello’s application to market a biosimilar of Amgen’s blockbuster Neupogen®, which treats the side effects of certain forms of cancer therapy; and
      • litigation in the District of Delaware regarding Hospira and Pfizer’s biosimilar of Amgen’s Neupogen®.
    • a post-grant review proceeding defending against rivals Adello and Apotex’s challenge of an Amgen patent relating to a method manufacturing of genetically engineered and biologic drugs.
  • Biogen in litigation against several of its major competitors on the fundamental patent covering the use of Biogen's top-selling product, the multiple sclerosis treatment Avonex®. This product was among the first therapeutic applications of recombinant DNA technology and was critical to Biogen's emergence as one of the world's leading biotech companies. In the litigation, Biogen has asserted that several of its competitors, including EMD Serono, Bayer Healthcare and Novartis, are infringing the patent in selling their own versions of recombinant beta interferon, the genetically engineered protein that is Avonex®.
  • Edwards Lifesciences, the industry leader in artificial heart valves, in several matters. We successfully moved for summary judgment of patent invalidity in a countersuit brought by Medtronic in the Central District of California. Most recently we sought and obtained an injunction against further infringement. Shortly after the injunction ruling, the parties entered into a settlement in which Medtronic agreed to pay more than $1.1 billion to Edwards. Additionally, in the company's patent war with Medtronic over replacement valves that can be inserted with a catheter, thus eliminating the need for open heart surgery. We won two major trial victories. In the first trial, a jury in Wilmington, Delaware, awarded Edwards $74 million (affirmed on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, certiorari denied) after it found that Medtronic's CoreValve ReValving system infringed Edwards' patent covering these revolutionary valves. The jury also found the infringement was willful, and awarded Edwards all of its lost profits as a result of Medtronic's infringement. In the second trial, another jury awarded Edwards more than $390 million after finding infringement of a second Edwards patent. Again the infringement was found to be willful.
  • Fiserv, Incorporated in a patent litigation dispute between Fiserv and its subsidiaries, CheckFree Corp. and CashEdge, Inc., and Fidelity National Information Services, Inc. and its subsidiary Metavante Corp. in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida. CheckFree and CashEdge brought the suit, accusing Metavante and FNIS of infringing four of their patents regarding pioneering technology for online financial transactions. Metavante counterclaimed asserting infringement of three of its own patents. We also represent CheckFree in related appeals before the Federal Circuit from the patent office's CBM decisions regarding the same patents.
  • Garmin, the world's leading maker of GPS devices, in achieving a significant victory in a patent suit brought by Triangle Software in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, known as the "rocket docket." Triangle alleged that Garmin's portable navigation devices, including the popular Nuvi and Zumo product lines, infringed five patents on traffic information technology. The plaintiff alleged that the total amount of infringing sales was more than $2 billion. The Paul, Weiss team obtained a favorable jury verdict of non-infringement on three of the five patents. The jury hung on the remaining two patents. The court later adopted the jury's decision and held that there was also no infringement of Triangle's remaining two patents, resulting in a complete decision for Garmin. After Triangle appealed the ruling, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the District Court's judgment in its entirety.
  • Genentech in several complex litigations involving the Cabilly patents, one of the fundamental innovations of modern molecular medicine - the production of genetically modified antibodies that can be used to treat human disease, especially cancer. The first series of cases centered on Arzerra™ a leukemia drug made by GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Lonza. The second series of cases centered on Benlysta™ , a lupus drug made by Human Genome Sciences in conjunction with GSK, and included both patent-infringement and antitrust claims. 
  • General Electric in achieving a jury trial victory in patent infringement litigation related to wind turbine technology. The jury in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas found that the patent-in-suit was valid and infringed by Mitsubishi Heavy Industries and Mitsubishi Power Systems Americas' wind turbine technology, and awarded GE approximately $170 million in damages.
  • Nichia, Panasonic and LaCie in an ITC proceeding involving a claim of patent infringement brought by Seoul Semiconductor (SSC).
  • Nichia, the world's largest supplier of LEDs, in a patent suit against Bluestone Innovations LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. Bluestone alleged that Nichia Corporation and its subsidiary, Nichia America Corporation, infringed one of its patents through the design and manufacturing of LEDs.  The Court dismissed with prejudice Bluestone's claims of infringement against Nichia.  Nichia did not pay or provide any consideration for Bluestone's dismissal with prejudice.  The dismissal came after Nichia obtained a favorable claim construction order and subsequently filed for summary judgment of non-infringement.
  • SAP AG, the Germany-based multinational enterprise software company, in:
    • connection with its challenges to a patent asserted by Investpic, LLC against SAP and multiple other companies, titled “Method and System for Analysis, Display and Dissemination of Financial Information Using Resampled Statistical Methods.” We provided behind-the-scenes assistance for SAP’s declaratory judgment suit in district court in Texas, which invalidated the Investpic patent for failure to claim patent-eligible subject matter. The decision was upheld by the Federal Circuit and also yielded an award of attorney fees to SAP from the district court; and 
    • defense of an action brought by business analytics provider Teradata alleging that SAP misappropriated trade secrets and infringed copyrights, in addition to alleging violations of the Sherman Act, related to SAP's product, HANA. 
  • Visible World and Cablevision in a patent infringement action brought by Invidi Technologies in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Invidi alleges that Visible World, a leading provider of targeted television advertising solutions, and Cablevision alone and jointly infringe a U.S. patent owned by Invidi. Settlement reached wherein Invidi's claims of infringement were dismissed with prejudice and defendants' counterclaims were dismissed without prejudice.

© 2019 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP

Privacy Policy