Source: https://www.dechert.com/people/r/robert-rhoad.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 03:01:05+00:00

Document:
Robert D. Rhoad represents clients in intellectual property and complex commercial litigation, primarily involving patents and licensing disputes, but also involving trade secrets, unfair competition claims, and covenants not to compete. He handles cases involving a wide range of technology areas, including cases involving patent portfolios and other proprietary information relating to drug delivery systems, pharmaceutical products, medical devices, and computer hardware and software technologies.
Mr. Rhoad has handled litigation and provided strategic patent advice for a diverse group of clients, including Endo Pharmaceuticals, Boston Scientific, Cardinal Health, Acer, Gateway, Hitachi, Pfizer, and other prominent life sciences and technology companies. He has handled many Markman hearings and trials, and has extensive experience litigating Hatch-Waxman Act ANDA infringement actions on behalf of branded pharmaceutical companies. Mr. Rhoad has tried cases in both state and federal court and has also successfully represented clients in arbitration, mediation, and other alternative dispute resolution proceedings.
As a respected patent litigator, Mr. Rhoad is regularly invited to lecture at the annual Joint Patent Law Seminar, sponsored jointly by the Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, and Philadelphia Intellectual Property Law Associations, and other venues on issues of patent law, intellectual property protection, and trade secret law. Mr. Rhoad was named an “IP Star” in 2018, and in 2015, he was named New Jersey Intellectual Property Litigator of the Year by Managing Intellectual Property. In 2017, he was named a “Life Sciences Star” by LMG Life Sciences, and the publication described Mr. Rhoad as a "highly recommended Hatch-Waxman litigator" in 2015. Mr. Rhoad is the managing partner of Dechert's Princeton office.
Endo Pharmaceuticals v. Teva, et al. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, District of Delaware). Trial counsel for Endo Pharmaceuticals in Hatch-Waxman Act cases filed against seven generic filers involving Endo's flagship OPANA® ER product. Endo prevailed in a five-week trial in the S.D.N.Y, and secured Federal Circuit affirmance of that trial victory, with all generics enjoined though 2023. Endo also prevailed with respect to an additional patent in a separate trial in Delaware. That ruling is on appeal, with all generics enjoined for an additional six years until 2029.
Argued the appeal of a large, multi-million dollar patent infringement judgment against a prominent ecommerce retailer in a case involving Internet-based ecommerce website technologies; the Federal Circuit vacated the judgment, absolving the client of any liability.
Lead counsel for a global healthcare company in a series of Hatch-Waxman Act infringement litigations against several generic manufacturers relating to the company’s cardiac care products. We successfully settled the cases following a favorable Markman ruling.
Endo Pharmaceuticals and Teikoku Seiyaku v. Watson Labs, Mylan, Noven and TWi (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware). Trial counsel for Endo and Teikoku in their prosecution of Hatch-Waxman Act ANDA cases involving Endo’s US$750 million a year Lidoderm® analgesic patch. Following a six-day bench trial against Watson, the first-filer, that case was settled. Other related cases settled before trial.
Endo Pharmaceuticals v. Impax, Actavis, Barr, Sandoz, Watson and Roxane (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey). Trial counsel for Endo in Hatch-Waxman Act ANDA cases filed against six generic companies involving Endo’s branded oxymorphone extended release tablet (OPANA® ER), two of which went to trial but settled before a judgment was rendered.
High Point v. T-Mobile (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey). Representation of High Point in litigation in relation to patents developed at Bell Labs which cover fundamental elements of CDMA wireless networks and related infrastructure equipment. Cases are still pending.
Lucent Technologies v. Gateway, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Southern District of California). Senior member of the Dechert team that defended computer-maker Gateway in a long-running dispute with Lucent, where Gateway received a number of significant and high-profile pre-trial rulings. When The National Law Journal named Dechert to its 2007 “Defense Hot List,” which recognizes just 10 firms nationally for “exemplary, cutting-edge defense,” the publication noted this case as a distinguishing aspect of the firm’s overall litigation practice.
Paris, et al. v. R.P Scherer and Cardinal Health (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey). Lead counsel in the defense of a wide-ranging patent and licensing dispute involving R.P. Scherer/Cardinal Health’s gelatin-free soft capsule technology, in which the most significant claims were dismissed by motion; the case settled favorably thereafter.
Elonex v. Packard Bell NEC, et al.; Elonex v. Compaq Computer, et al. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware). Senior member of the team pursuing a licensing and litigation campaign in relation to Elonex’s monitor power management technology. Brought patent infringement claims in the U.S. against more than 30 companies, with Elonex receiving more than US$125 million in royalties, settlements, and damages, including a US$9 million judgment after trial in the District of Delaware, which the Federal Circuit affirmed.
Lectec v. Endo Pharmaceuticals, et al (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas). Led Endo’s defense of a patent infringement claim relating to Endo’s Lidoderm® product, which settled on the eve of the preliminary injunction hearing.
Hewlett-Packard v. Acer, Inc. (U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin). Led Acer’s pursuit of infringement claims, and defense of related infringement counterclaims, relating to patented computer power management technologies, which settled favorably on the eve of trial.
Lavipharm Laboratories v. Conopco/Unilever (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey). Lead counsel representing the startup biotechnology company in a patent infringement and misappropriation of trade secrets suit against a prominent consumer products company, resulting in a lucrative license obtained after moving for entry of a preliminary injunction.
Ludlow Corp. v. Conmed Corp. (U.S. District Court, District of Massachusetts). Lead counsel in the defense of an infringement claim relating to Conmed’s portfolio of medical electrodes, which was settled favorably.
Speaker, "Hot Topics re. §101 and §102" breakout session.
Moderator, "Hot Topics in Patent Litigation" roundtable session.
Speaker, "The Evolving Principles of Venue and Jurisdiction in the Aftermath ofTC Heartland" panel which outlined: Understanding the repercussions of TC Heartland on Paragraph IV litigation; Exploring the jurisdictions where the recent flurry of patent infringement complaints have been filed, and assessing how different jurisdictions are interpreting the decision; and Examining the Federal Circuit’s recent rulings on District Court interpretations of TC Heartland, as well as the various litmus tests, which some jurisdictions have devised, in the aftermath of this decision.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 §101
 §102