Source: https://www.mintz.com/our-people/john-bauer
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 10:28:10+00:00

Document:
John also has experience before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (BPAI), including Inter Partes Review (IPR) and Post Grant Review (PGR) proceedings and interferences.
Prior to joining Mintz, John was a partner in an international law firm, where he focused on patent litigation, inter partes proceedings, due diligence, and client counseling.
Represent a pharmaceutical company asserting patent infringement against multiple generic manufacturers in a Hatch-Waxman litigation involving the statin Livalo®. After a two-week trial, the district court found the patents valid and infringed. Mr. Bauer’s cross-examination was quoted in the favorable opinion. The district court's decision was recently affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Represent a pharmaceutical company in a PGR alleging a patent covering a method of treating cancer is invalid.
Represent a pharmaceutical company in an IPR alleging a patent covering a therapeutic composition of iduronate-2-sulfatase is invalid.
Represented an eyeglass manufacturer in an IPR and successfully invalidated two patents at issue directed to fluid-filled adjustable eyeglasses.
Represented a pharmaceutical company asserting patent infringement against a generic manufacturer in a Hatch-Waxman litigation involving delayed-release prednisone, Rayos®. The case settled favorably.
Represented a pharmaceutical company asserting patent infringement against another pharmaceutical company for its manufacture and sale of the anti-cancer agent, Istodax®. The case settled favorably for millions of dollars.
Defended a pharmaceutical company against a charge of patent infringement alleging damages for hundreds of millions of dollars for its manufacture and sale of recombinantly produced EPO, Recormon®. After a successful trial, case settled favorably just before Federal Circuit oral argument.
Defended a pharmaceutical company in a case involving alleged infringement of a recombinant tPA analog, Reteplase®. Obtained partial summary judgment of no infringement before the pharmaceutical company was purchased and forced by the FTC to sell its rights to Reteplase® to a third party.
Defended a medical device company against a charge of patent infringement for its manufacture and sale of a self-expanding nitinol stent, Radius®. Case settled favorably after a jury trial, but before the jury rendered its verdict.
Defended a manufacturer of multi-million dollar computer controlled plate glass coating equipment against a charge of patent infringement alleging damages for the use of said equipment. The case settled favorably.
Defended a major university against a charge of patent infringement involving laser technology. District Court granted summary judgment of no infringement and the case settled favorably after a Federal Circuit decision.
Represented a telecommunications company in a bet the company patent infringement case involving telecommunications and e-commerce. Initially defeated a motion for a preliminary injunction and subsequently won the case on a motion for summary judgment of no infringement.
Defended a molecular diagnostics company against a charge of patent infringement relating to biological assays. Case settled favorably just prior to Markman hearing.
Successfully represented a pharmaceutical company and university that sued the USPTO in district court to obtain the correct (and significantly longer) period of Patent Term Adjustment (PTA).
Mintz has secured a string of substantial victories in Hatch-Waxman litigation for innovative drug manufacturers Kowa Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., and Nissan Chemical Industries Ltd.
John Bauer, a Member in the New York Mintz office and experienced patent litigator, is featured in this American Lawyer profile that discusses his intellectual property practice and his passion for racecar driving.
In the February 1, 2019 decision of Mylan Pharms. Inc. v. Research Corp. Techs., 2019 U.S. App. LEXIS 3282, __ F.3d __, 2019 WL 405682, the Federal Circuit affirmed a PTAB final written decision (FWD) holding claims of U.S. Reissue Patent 38,551 not unpatentable. The Federal Circuit also held that time-barred petitioners who participated in an IPR as a result of joinder have standing to appeal. In finding such standing, the Federal Circuit analyzed the interplay between 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(b), 315(c), and 319.
Recently in Nuna Baby Essentials, Inc. v. Britax Child Safety, Inc., IPR2018-01683, Paper No. 11 (PTAB Dec. 18, 2018), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”) denied Petitioner’s motion to excuse the late filing of exhibits to the Petition, finding that Petitioner failed to establish good cause for such late filing or that consideration of the late-filed exhibits would be in the interests of justice.
In the continuing Amgen v. Sanofi saga, Amgen has asked SCOTUS to take up the issue of written description, which is currently established by showing “whether the disclosure…reasonably conveys…that the inventor had possession of the claimed subject matter as of the filing date.” Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010)(en banc)(emphasis added).
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued an August 2018 update to the American Invents Act Trial Practice Guide (the “Updated TPG”). The Updated TPG incorporates the PTAB’s current practices and provides further explanation of certain aspects of the PTAB’s standard practices to the public.
On May 10, 2017 and following a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) reexamination decision upholding certain claims, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit ruled in Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Cirrex Systems, LLC that all of the appealed claims of a fiber optic patent held by Cirrex are invalid for lack of a written description support required by 35 U.S.C. § 112.
In Univ. of Utah Res. Foundation et al. v. Ambry Genetics Corp., No. 2014-1361 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 17, 2014), the Federal Circuit once again has weighed in on the patent eligibility of Myriad Genetics, Inc.’s patents related to BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 112
 v.