skip to main content

ProfessionalsPeter Sandel

Peter Sandel
Counsel

Tel: +1-212-373-3198
Fax: +1-212-492-0198
psandel@paulweiss.com

+1-212-373-3198
New York

1285 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10019-6064
Fax: +1-212-492-0198

+ vCard ADD TO CONTACTS
Education 
Bar Admissions 
Education 
Bar Admissions 

As counsel in the Litigation Department, Peter Sandel focuses his practice on patent litigation matters. Peter has been extensively involved in all aspects of patent litigation including trials in federal district courts and appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He has litigated patents in a wide variety of technical areas with a particular emphasis on biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Peter has also litigated patents regarding internet technologies, semiconductors and medical devices.

EXPERIENCE

Representative cases include:

  • Amgen Inc. et al. v. Mylan Inc. et al., No. 1:17-cv-01235 (W.D. Pa.): representing Amgen in biosimilar litigation regarding NEULASTA®.
  • 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.): representing Amgen in biosimilar litigation regarding NEUPOGEN® that presented issues of first impression regarding interpretation of the BPCIA.
  • Amgen Inc. et al. v. Adello Biologics, LLC. et al., No. 18-cv-3347-CCC-MF (D.N.J.): representing Amgen in litigation in the District of New Jersey regarding Adello’s application to market a biosimilar of Amgen’s NEUPOGEN®.
  • Biogen Inc. v. Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals, EMD Serono, Inc., Pfizer Inc., and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp., 2:10-cv-02734 (D. N.J.): Trial counsel for Biogen in a multi-billion dollar patent dispute involving recombinant beta interferon. Obtained a judgement in favor of Biogen on all liability issues following a five-week jury trial, with a damages trial yet to be scheduled.
  • Eli Lilly & Co., and ImClone Sys. LLC., v. Genentech, Inc., and City of Hope, 4:13-cv-0919 (N.D. Cal.): representing Genentech in action related to monoclonal antibody technology.
  • Glaxo Group Limited v. Genentech, Inc., 2:10-cv-02764 (C.D. Cal.): representing Genentech in patent infringement case involving monoclonal antibody technology.
  • GlaxoSmithKline LLC., v. Genentech, Inc., 10-cv-799 (D. Del.): representing Genentech in patent infringement case regarding chromatography techniques.
  • Human Genome Sciences, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. and City of Hope, 2:11-cv-06519 (C.D. Cal.): represented Genentech and City of Hope in action related to monoclonal antibody technology.
  • Everlight v. Nichia Corporation, represented Nichia in an appeal to the Federal Circuit involving Nichia’s revolutionary technology covering bright-white LEDs.
  • Life Technologies, Inc. et al. v. Illumina Inc. and Solexa Inc., 3:11 cv 703 (S.D. Cal.): representing Life Technologies in patent infringement case regarding next-gen sequencing instruments sold by both Illumina and Life Technologies.
  • Merck Sharp & Dohme Pharmaceuticals SRL v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 07-cv-1596 (D. N.J.): successfully prevented Teva from launching generic version of Singulair™, Merck’s top selling product, after five-day trial.
  • PDL Biopharma Inc. v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc., 07-cv-156 (D. Del.): represented PDL in patent infringement action regarding Alexion’s product, Soliris™.
  • MedImmune LLC v. PDL Biopharma Inc., 08-cv-5590 (N.D. Cal.): represented PDL in declaratory judgment action case brought by Medimmune.
  • Paid Search Engine Tools LLC. v. Yahoo! Inc., Google Inc. and Microsoft Corp., 07-cv-403 (E.D. Tex.): defended Yahoo! against claims of patent infringement; claims invalidated on summary judgment.
  • Yeda Research and Development Co. Ltd. v. Imclone Systems Inc. and Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 03-cv-8484 (S.D. N.Y.): successfully challenged ownership of patent related to Erbitux. After bench trial, Court awarded patent ownership to Yeda.
  • Israel Bio-Engineering Project v. Amgen, Inc. et al., 02-cv-6860 (C.D. Cal.): defended against allegations regarding ownership of patent, case resolved on summary judgment in Yeda’s favor.

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

Privacy Policy