skip to main content

ProfessionalsJennifer H. Wu

Jennifer H. Wu
Partner

Tel: +1-212-373-3640
Fax: +1-212-492-0640
jwu@paulweiss.com

+1-212-373-3640
New York

1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
Fax: +1-212-492-0640

+ vCard ADD TO CONTACTS
Education 
Clerkship 
Bar Admissions 
Education 
Clerkship 
Bar Admissions 

A partner in the Litigation Department, Jennifer H. Wu focuses her practice on patent litigation matters. Jennifer frequently tries cases in federal district courts and the International Trade Commission. She also argues appeals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and represents clients in the U.S. Supreme Court. She has litigated patents in a wide variety of technical areas including sequencing technology and GPS devices, with a particular emphasis on biotechnology. Jennifer’s work on biologics includes litigating issues of first impression as to the BPCIA.

Jennifer clerked for Judge Alan D. Lourie at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. She received an A.B. in Biochemical Sciences from Harvard University in 1999, and her J.D. in 2004 from NYU School of Law where she received the Vanderbilt Medal for Service to the Law School Community and the President’s Service Award for Leadership at New York University. She is an Advisory Board member of the NYU Law Alumni of Color Association.

Jennifer has been widely recognized within the legal industry and the patent litigation bar for her achievements. In 2019, Jennifer was named to Benchmark Litigation’s “40 & Under Hot List – Northeast.” In 2018, she was selected by The New York Law Journal as a “Rising Star,” an award that recognizes top attorneys under the age 40. In 2017, Jennifer was a recipient of the “Best Under 40” award from the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA).

Jennifer is a member of the Board of the Federal Circuit Bar Association (FCBA), and a former co-chair of the FCBA Patent Litigation Committee, the Mock Argument Committee, and the Rules Committee. She received the FCBA’s George Hutchinson Committee Award recognizing committee leadership in 2016 and 2018. In addition, she has moderated and spoken on NAPABA panels and mentored younger lawyers by judging the Thomas Tang Moot Court competition, of which she is a past Northeast Regional winner. She is also a co-chair of the Women’s Committee of the Asian American Bar Association of New York (AABANY). Jennifer is Paul, Weiss’s sponsoring partner for the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), a regular contributor to Paul, Weiss’s amicus briefs before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of the American Bar Association, and the recipient of Paul, Weiss’s 2017 Teaching Award, awarded by the firm’s associates for excellence in mentorship. In addition, Jennifer is a Board member of Friends of UNFPA, which supports the life-saving work of the United Nations reproductive health and rights agency, the United Nations Population Fund.

EXPERIENCE

Her representative cases include: 

  • In re Matter of Certain Microfluidic Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1068 (International Trade Commission) (represented 10X Genomics in patent case involving microfluidic chips for sequencing).
  • Amgen Inc. et al. v. Mylan Inc. et al., No. 1:17-cv-01235 (W.D. Pa.) (biosimilar litigation regarding NEULASTA®).
  • Amgen Inc. et al. v. Coherus Biosciences Inc., 1:17-cv-00546 (D. Del.) (biosimilar litigation regarding NEULASTA®).
  • Amgen Inc. v. Hospira Inc., 2179 (Fed. Cir.) (appeal regarding BPCIA issues).
  • Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al, No. 3:16-cv-02581 (N.D. Cal.) (biosimilar litigation regarding NEULASTA®).
  • Amgen Inc. et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al., Nos. 15-cv-61631, 15-cv-62081 (S.D. Fl.), No. 2016-1308 (Fed. Cir.) No. 16-332 (S. Ct.) (biosimilar litigation regarding NEULASTA® and NEUPOGEN®).
  • Amgen Inc. et al. v. Sandoz Inc. et al, No. 3:14-cv-04741 (N.D. Cal.), No. 2015-1499 (Fed. Cir.), Nos. 15-1039, 15-1195 (S. Ct.) (biosimilar litigation regarding NEUPOGEN® that presented issues of first impression regarding interpretation of the BPCIA).
  • Navico Inc. et al. v. Garmin International, Inc. et al, No. 16-cv-0190 (E.D. Tex.) (patent case involving marine sonar products).
  • Navico Inc. et al. v. Garmin International, Inc. et al, No. 14-cv-303 (N.D. Ok.) (patent case involving marine sonar products).
  • In the Matter of Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Systems, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-926 (International Trade Commission) (represented Garmin in patent case involving marine sonar products).
  • In the Matter of Certain Marine Sonar Imaging Devices, Including Downscan and Sidescan Devices, Products Containing the Same, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-921 (International Trade Commission) Nos. 16-1533, 16-1572, 16-2584 (Fed. Cir.) (represented Garmin in patent case involving marine sonar products).
  • Enzo Biochem, Inc. et al. v. Applera Corp. et al., No. 3:04-cv-929 (D. Ct.), Nos. 2009-1281, 2014-1321 (Fed. Cir.) (obtained favorable judgment in patent case involving DNA sequencing).
  • BASF Agro B.V. et al. v. Makhteshim Agan of North America et al., No. 10-CV-276 (M.D.N.C.) (patent case involving pesticides).
  • In the Matter of Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Prods. Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-785 (International Trade Commission), (represented Siemens in patent case involving LED technology).
  • Pacing Technologies, LLC v. Garmin International, Inc. et al., No. 12-CV-1067 (S.D. Cal.) (patent case involving GPS devices).
  • Triangle Software, LLC v. Garmin International, Inc. et al., No. 10-CV-1457 (E.D. Va.) (obtained favorable jury verdict and district court decision in patent case involving GPS devices).
  • Genentech, Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. & Sanofi-Aventis U.S., Nos. 11-cv-1156; 11-cv-9463 (S.D.N.Y.) (patent cases involving products relating to Vascular Endothelial Growth Factor).
  • Cancer Research Technology Ltd. and Schering Corporation v. Barr Laboratories, No. 2010-1204 (Fed. Cir.) (obtained favorable reversal of district court judgment that rendered patent unenforceable for inequitable conduct and prosecution laches in case regarding TEMODAR®).
  • U.S. Phillips Corporation v. Iwasaki Electric Company, Ltd., No. 2009-1252 (Fed. Cir.) (patent case involving high pressure mercury vapor lamps).
  • Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., No. 2009-1182 (Fed. Cir.) (patent case involving interference proceedings).
  • Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Mylan Inc., Ranbaxy Inc., Sandoz, Inc., Barr Laboratories, Inc., Aurobindo Pharma, Ltd., et al., Nos. 09-CV-00033, 10-CV-00120, 10-CV-524, 10-CV-01050 (D. Del.); Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Lupin Ltd., Barr Laboratories, Inc. et al., Nos. 09-CV-03062, 09-CV-03464 (D. Md.) (patent cases regarding SOLODYN®).
  • Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp., No. 08-CV-00253 (N.D. Cal.) (obtained favorable dismissal of declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate patent).
  • Prasco, LLC v. Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp. et al., No. 2007-1524 (Fed. Cir.) (obtained favorable affirmance of district court judgment dismissing case for lack of declaratory judgment jurisdiction).
  • PDL Biopharma Inc. v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 07-CV-00156 (D. Del.) (patent case involving humanized antibodies).
  • Storage Technology v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 00-CV-01176 (N.D. Cal.) (obtained favorable jury verdict of noninfringement and invalidity).
  • Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Applera Corp., No. 03-CV-01316 (N.D. Cal.) (patent case involving DNA sequencing).

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

Privacy Policy