skip to main content

ProfessionalsKripa Raman

Kripa Raman
Counsel

Tel: +1-212-373-3295
Fax: +1-212-492-0295
kraman@paulweiss.com

+1-212-373-3295
New York

1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
Fax: +1-212-492-0295

+ vCard ADD TO CONTACTS
Education 
Bar Admissions 
Education 
Bar Admissions 

As counsel in the Litigation Department, Kripa Raman focuses his practice on patent litigation matters. He also has experience in trade secrets litigation, licensing and the intellectual property aspects of transactions.

Mr. Raman has a B.A. in Chemistry from Columbia University and a J.D. from Duke University.

EXPERIENCE

Representative cases:

  • Abbott Edwards v. Lifesciences (D. Del.) (transcatheter mitral heart valve repair technology; case settled on eve of trial after client Edwards Lifesciences defeated motions for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction)
  • Boston Scientific v. Edwards Lifesciences. (D. Del., C.D. Cal.) Trial counsel for Edwards in multi-jurisdiction litigation involving transcatheter aortic heart valve technology; obtained worldwide settlement resulting in 8% increase in Edwards’ stock price;
  • Edwards Lifesciences v. Medtronic (D. Del., C.D. Cal.) (In series of litigations on behalf of client Edwards Lifesciences relating to transcatheter aortic heart valve and cardiac pacing patents, obtained separate jury verdicts of $393.6 million and $74 million, each for willful infringement. After Edwards Lifesciences obtained a permanent injunction, the Medtronic matters ultimately settled with Medtronic paying Edwards over $1 billion.)
  • Nevro v. Stimwave (D. Del.) (represented Stimwave in preliminary injunction hearing relating to implantable spinal cord stimulation systems for relief of chronic pain)
  • BASF and Bayer v. Makhteshim Agan of North America and Control Solutions, Inc. (M.D.N.C.) (heterocyclic chemical compounds used as pesticides; client BASF obtained a consent judgment broadly prohibiting infringement and a subsequent contempt order for Defendants’ violation of the consent judgment)
  • BASF and Bayer v. Cheminova, Inc. (M.D.N.C.) (heterocyclic chemical compounds used as pesticides; client BASF obtained stipulated injunction following Markman ruling repeatedly citing admissions of defendant’s own technical expert)
  • BASF v. Honeywell Int’l et al. (N.J. Supr. Ct., Ch. Div) (trade secrets relating to catalysts and absorbents; client BASF obtained preliminary injunction and stipulated final injunction)
  • Chevron Phillips Chemicals v. BASF (S.D. Tex.) (block copolymers; client BASF obtained complete dismissal of all claims prior to Markman ruling)
  • Viva Healthcare Packaging v. CTL Packaging USA and Tuboplast Hispania (W.D.N.C.) (injection molding of high melt flow polymers to manufacture squeezable tubes; case settled after client Viva prevailed on all summary judgment motions and obtained exclusion of technical expert opinions contrary to Court’s claim construction rulings)
  • L’Oreal v. Estée Lauder (D.N.J.) (polyamide based mascara formulations; case settled after client Estée Lauder obtained Markman ruling precluding infringement of claims specifically drafted to cover its accused products)
  • In the Matter of Certain Short Wavelength Semiconductor Lasers and Products Containing Same (ITC) (represented Nichia Corporation in successfully defending its technology relating to semiconductor blue LEDs and lasers that was subsequently awarded the Nobel Prize in physics)
  • Plasma Physics v. IBM et al., (E.D.N.Y.) (plasma enhanced chemical vapor deposition methods of semiconductor manufacturing; obtained numerous settlements on behalf of solo inventor)
  • Collins v. Gillette (E.D. Tex.) (defended Gillette’s technology for diamond-like carbon coating of razor blades; case settled after Markman ruling)
  • Khedesian v. Bombardier (C.D. Cal.) (suspension system used in jet-skis; client Bombardier obtained summary judgment of noninfringement)
  • Verizon California v. RAKTL (C.D. Cal.) (interactive telephony; case settled after client RAKTL obtained favorable Markman ruling)
  • Purdue Pharma v. Roxane and Endo (S.D.N.Y) (controlled release opioid pharmaceuticals; obtained preliminary injunction, affirmed by the Federal Circuit)

© 2022 Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP

Privacy Policy