ProfessionalsCatherine Nyarady

Catherine Nyarady
Partner

Tel: +1-212-373-3532
Fax: +1-212-492-0532
cnyarady@paulweiss.com

+1-212-373-3532
New York

1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
Fax: +1-212-492-0532

+ vCard ADD TO CONTACTS
Education 
Bar Admissions 
Education 
Bar Admissions 

A partner in the Litigation Department and Deputy Chair of the Patent Litigation Group and co-chair of the Recruiting Committee, Catherine Nyarady specializes in patent litigation and is registered to practice in the United States Patent and Trademark Office. She has represented major corporate clients in patent litigations involving a wide range of technologies.

Catherine represented Edwards Lifesciences, the industry leader in artificial heart valves, in multiple litigations and related proceedings, including litigations against Medtronic, Inc. regarding transcatheter heart valves (THV). In 2014, Edwards secured an injunction order against the U.S. launch of Medtronic’s THV products, leading to a settlement in which Medtronic paid to Edwards over $1 billion. This was preceded by two major trial victories: a 2010 jury award of $74 million to Edwards (affirmed on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, certiorari denied) and a 2014 jury award to Edwards of over $393 million.

Catherine is regularly recognized for her work in patent litigation by leading publications such as Chambers USA where sources say she is “technically proficient and has a deep knowledge of patent law” and The Legal 500 where she has been described as having “the big advantage of being a top class litigator combined with a very extensive scientific understanding” and being “very good with tough issues and witnesses." In 2017, Catherine was recognized as a “Client Service All-Star” by BTI Consulting Group.

EXPERIENCE

Cases illustrating Catherine's patent litigation experience include her representation of:

  • Amgen v. Apotex, regarding Apotex's abbreviated BLAs for biosimilar versions of Amgen's Neupogen® and Neulasta® products, which included obtaining a preliminary and permanent injunction against Apotex that it cannot launch its product until at least 180 days after it has received FDA approval under the BPCIA as interpreted in a favorable ruling by the Federal Circuit;
  • Clayton Corporation v. Altachem N.V. and Lindal North America as lead counsel in a patent infringement action over valves made from glass-filled polyolefins used to dispense polyurethane foam;
  • BASF v. MANA and Cheminovain patent infringement cases involving pesticides and in a patent infringement case involving low-VOC polymers;
  • Conair Corporation v. Jarden Corp. and Sunbeam Products, Inc. as lead counsel in a patent infringement litigation involving cappuccino makers;
  • Rayovac v. Duracell, Inc. and The Gillette Co. in a patent infringement litigation involving hearing aid batteries achieving a jury verdict and judgment of patent invalidity holding all three patents involved in the suit invalid;
  • Edwards Lifesciences v. Medtronic in a 2014 jury verdict for Edwards of $393.6 million, a 2010 $74 million jury verdict for Edwards for willful infringement of a transcatheter heart valve patent (2010 verdict aff'd  699 F.3d 1305 (Fed. Cir. 2012), cert. denied), summary judgment of patent invalidity in a countersuit brought by Medtronic in the Central District of California and in other patent infringement actions involving transcatheter heart valves. The Medtronic matters ultimately settled with Medtronic paying Edwards over $1 billion;
  • Endoheart AG v. Edwards Lifesciences as lead counsel in patent infringement litigation involving transcatheter heart valves;
  • Boston Scientific v. Edwards Lifesciences in a case involving transcatheter heart valves;
  • Estee Lauder v. L'Oreal in a chemical patent case on mascara cosmetic products;
  • Gillette v. Schick in several cases, including a major decision that its patented "group" of three blades covers cartridges with four or five blades;  a patent case on female shaving products; and several other patent cases on shaving products;
  • NCR Corp. in a patent infringement litigation involving Internet method and information storage systems;
  • Nichia Corporation in several matters in District Court (Bluestone) and the ITC (Seoul Semiconducter Co.), both including patent infringement claims involving LEDs and LDs and blue laser technology; and multiple pending patent litigations regarding LED backlighting in TVs;
  • Everlight v. Nichia Corporation, in an appeal to the Federal Circuit involving Nichia’s revolutionary technology covering bright-white LEDs, used in the backlighting of smartphones, computers and TVs, in street and traffic lights, and home lighting products;
  • Nichia Corporation in the enforcement of its patent rights to white LEDs in ongoing nationwide litigations against multiple alleged infringers. In related USPTO challenges, the PTAB declined to institute IPR proceedings on four petitions brought by one of the alleged infringers;
  • Plasma Physics Corp. as plaintiff in multi-defendant litigations involving plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition (PECVD) technology used to manufacture semiconductor chips and flat panel displays;
  • Symbol Technologies, Inc. v. Lemelson Medical, Education and Research Foundation in patent infringement litigation involving bar code and machine vision technology resulting in a judgment finding prosecution laches and the Lemelson Foundation patents invalid, unenforceable and not infringed;
  • Toshiba Corp. in a case involving DVD patent license agreement and subject patents;
  • United Container in achieving summary judgment of non-infringement in a patent infringement litigation involving corrugated cardboard downstackers;
  • Invidi v. Visible World and Cablevision as lead counsel in a patent infringement case involving household addressable advertising;
  • Viva Healthcare Packaging v. CTL Packaging USA as lead counsel in a patent infringement action involving injection-molded thin-walled articles, such as tubes, and methods for manufacturing the same;
  • UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research & Development Co. in patent enforcement litigation regarding anti-TNF-α antibodies; and
  • Zagat Survey, LLC. in several major patent matters, including patent infringement cases involving: a method of location-based mobile services; geographically referenced data; internet navigation methods; and online restaurant reservations.

Catherine has also tried trademark cases. Her trademark experience includes her representation of Time4Media before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in the successful defense of trademark opposition proceedings involving the Popular Science mark, Time Warner Entertainment (HBO) in the successful defense in a full jury trial of trademark infringement litigation, and Mermaid Seafoods in the favorable settlement and dismissal of trademark infringement claims against Mermaid Seafoods during a bench trial.

Catherine received her B.S. in Chemical Engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in 1993 where she was a T.J. Watson Scholar. She received her J.D. in 1996 from Cornell Law School where she was an editor of the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy and Chancellor of the Moot Court Board.

Catherine authored a chapter on "Settling Patent Cases" in the leading treatise on the law of settlement agreements and the settlement process, Settlement Agreements in Commercial Disputes: Negotiating, Drafting and Enforcement, published by Wolters Kluwer. Catherine is a member of The American Intellectual Property Law Association and The New York Intellectual Property Law Association.

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

Privacy Policy