Source: https://www.goodwinlaw.com/professionals/b/burgess-brian
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 00:59:55+00:00

Document:
Brian Burgess is a partner in the firm’s Litigation Department and Appellate Litigation practice. His work focuses on appellate matters and complex civil litigation in federal courts, and he has experience in a wide range of areas including antitrust law, administrative law (with a particular focus on FDA litigation), constitutional law, intellectual property, ERISA and financial services litigation. Mr. Burgess was named to Benchmark Litigation’s “Under 40 Hotlist” in 2018 and 2017.
Prior to joining Goodwin, Mr. Burgess served as a law clerk to Associate Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the Supreme Court of the United States. He previously worked in the Department of Justice as a special assistant to the Solicitor General.
Led briefing and presented oral argument in the D.C. Circuit in a litigation that resulted in the dismissal of a challenge to a shipping client’s eligibility to participate in the “Maritime Security Program” administered by the Maritime Administration and the Department of Defense. See Matson Navigation Co. v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 895 F.3d 799 (D.C. Cir. 2018).
Led merits briefing in several matters in the U.S. Supreme Court. Co-authored brief and served as second-chair in Supreme Court litigation concerning the test for whether an artistic design feature can qualify for a copyright. Mr. Burgess represented the copyright owner, which designed original artwork appearing on clothing. The Supreme Court held by a vote of 6-2 that the designs were copyright-eligible. Star Athletica, LLC v. Varsity Brands, Inc., 137 S. Ct. 1002 (2017).
Co-authored brief in D.C. Circuit on behalf of a pharmaceutical company defending approval of its new drug application against a competitor’s exclusivity challenge. The D.C. Circuit upheld FDA’s approval of our client’s application in a decision that set an important precedent on the scope of 3-year exclusivities for new clinical investigations. Otsuka Pharm. Co. v. Price, 869 F.3d 987 (D.C. Cir. 2017).
Served as counsel of record to U.S. Chamber of Commerce in briefs in the Third Circuit and the Ninth Circuit concerning the pleading standards applicable to ERISA claims alleging fiduciary breach.
Co-authored briefs in the Second Circuit on behalf of a major banking client in a putative class-action alleging violations of the Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act based on the rates charged for lender-placed insurance. Successfully obtained interlocutory review and reversal of adverse judgment resulting in an order to dismiss all claims. Rothstein v. Balboa Insurance Company, 794 F.3d 256 (2d Cir. 2015).
Co-authored motion to dismiss briefing in litigation in the Southern District of New York defending a leading test-preparation company against Sherman Act and RICO claims brought by a competitor. Court dismissed antitrust and RICO claims with prejudice.
Defending a leading pharmaceutical manufacturer in putative class actions challenging patent litigation settlements on antitrust grounds, initiated after the Supreme Court’s decision in FTC v. Actavis, 133 S. Ct. 2223 (2013). Co-authored motions to dismiss briefs in complex multidistrict litigation resulting in dismissal of several claims and complete dismissal of claims against the parent corporation.
Co-authored briefs on behalf of a leading pharmaceutical manufacturer and several other intervenors in a suit against FDA seeking to stop the launch of generic versions of the drug Abilify.® Successfully opposed a preliminary injunction and then obtained summary judgment.
Co-authored several briefs in opposition to petition for certiorari in the Supreme Court, including a brief in a First Amendment challenge to a transit authority’s advertising policy, a brief concerning the rules for claim construction in patent litigation, and a brief in a Sixth Amendment sentencing case in opposition to the Michigan Attorney General.
Presented oral argument and successfully persuaded the Fourth Circuit to vacate in a pro bono matter challenging a county’s anti-panhandling ordinance as inconsistent with the First Amendment. Reynolds v. Middleton, 779 F.3d 222 (4th Cir. 2015).
Christie v. NCAA: Will New Jersey’s Bet on Sports Gambling Pay Off?
Place Your Bets: Will the Trump Administration Support New Jersey’s Push to Expand Sports Gambling?

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.