Source: https://pbnlaw.com/attorneys/bell-kevin/
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 03:51:10+00:00

Document:
Kevin Bell is a principal of Porzio, Bromberg & Newman and a member of the firm’s Intellectual Property and Litigation Departments. His practice focuses primarily on litigating complex disputes involving patents, trademarks, trade secrets, trade dress and unfair competition on behalf of a broad range of clients before federal courts and agencies, the International Trade Commission and various alternative dispute resolution forums. Kevin has extensive experience in licensing intellectual property and regularly provides strategic counseling to clients regarding development and enforcement of intellectual property portfolios. He is a member of the firm's Management Committee and the regional managing principal of the Washington, D.C. office. Prior to joining the firm, Kevin was a partner in the intellectual property department of Patton Boggs LLP.
Kevin represents companies across a broad range of technologies that include biotech, pharmaceutical, medical device, dietary supplement, software, semi-conductor and computer science related matters. He has developed a substantial practice representing U.S. and international companies and inventors in various industries, enforcing intellectual property rights in groundbreaking technologies and products. These representations often involve large intellectual property portfolios litigated simultaneously in the U.S. and across multiple foreign jurisdictions. As part of his practice, Kevin has successfully developed and implemented novel economic theories to obtain substantial monetary damages awards. He represents clients on matters before the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and works closely with members of Porzio's regulatory and compliance practices on specific issues related to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).
Mr. Bell is frequently retained to counsel U.S. and international clients on managing and monetizing their intellectual property assets. He advises on intellectual property matters that arise in corporate mergers, acquisitions and other due diligence transactions. He works with companies and universities to develop strategies that generate revenue from their intellectual property assets, while also advising on how to decrease costs in maintaining and exploiting existing portfolios. Mr. Bell has extensive experience in assisting clients in creatively and successfully licensing, selling and acquiring intellectual property in several industry sectors.
Becton Dickinson & Co. v. Tyco Healthcare LP – Represented Becton Dickinson in patent litigation regarding safety needles in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
MBO Laboratories, Inc., v. Becton Dickinson & Co. – Represented Becton Dickinson in patent litigation regarding safety needles in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts.
Pressure Products Medical Supplies, Inc. v. Greatbatch Medical, Inc. – Represented Greatbatch in patent litigation regarding valved, peelable/splittable introducers in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.
Biacore AB v. Thermo BioAnalysis, Inc. – Represented Biacore in patent litigation involving biosensors in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Applera Corp. v. Bio-Rad Labs., MJ Research and Stratagene Corp. – Represented Stratagene in patent litigation involving Real Time qPCR machines in the U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut.
Digene Corporation v. Ventana Medical System, Inc. and Beckman Coulter, Inc. – Represented Digene in patent litigation involving antibody detection kits and systems directed to human papillomavirus (HPV) in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Enzo Biochem v. Digene Corporation – Represented Digene in patent litigation involving systems and methods for antibody detection of viruses in the U.S. District Court of Delaware.
Benitec Australia, Inc. v. Nucleonics Inc. - Represented Benitec in patent litigation involving RNAi technology in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Stratagene Corp. v. Biometra GMBH and Biometra U.S., Inc. – Represented Stratagene in patent litigation involving T Gradient thermocyclers in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. Archer-Daniels Midland – Represented Ajinomoto in patent litigation involving methods using recombinant biotechnology to produce amino specific amino acids – threonine and lysine in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Oxford Gene Technology, Ltd. v. Mergen Ltd., Clontech Laboratories, Inc. d/b/a BD Biosciences Clontech, PerkinElmer Life Sciences, Inc. – Represented Clontech in patent litigation involving nucleic acid array products in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Clontech Laboratories, Inc. v. Life Technologies, Inc. (formerly Invitrogen Corp.) – Represented Clontech in a patent false marking case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
Life Technologies, Inc. (formerly Invitrogen Corp.) v. Clontech Laboratories, Inc. – Represented Clontech in patent litigation involving RNase H- Reverse Transcriptase products in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Life Technologies, Inc. (formerly Invitrogen Corp.) v. Stratagene Corp. – Represented Clontech in patent litigation involving RNase H- Reverse Transcriptase products in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Flamel Technologies, S.A. v. Lupin Limited, et al. – Represented Flamel in ANDA patent litigation involving drug delivery systems in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
Flamel Technologies, S.A. v. Anchen Pharmaceuticals, Inc. - Represented Flamel in ANDA patent litigation involving drug delivery systems in the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland.
OxyBand Technologies, Inc. v. Day & Zimmerman and O2S, LLC – Represented OxyBand in arbitration in Delaware involving oxygenated wound dressings before the American Arbitration Association.
"Dietary Supplement Update," Porzio Dietary Supplement Legal Update, June 14, 2017.
"Dietary Supplement Legal Update," Porzio Dietary Supplement Legal Update, April 26, 2017.
"Dietary Supplement Legal Update," Porzio Dietary Supplement Legal Update, September 22, 2016.
"Dietary Supplement Legal Update," Porzio Dietary Supplement Legal Update, August 12, 2016.
"Supreme Court Eases Test For Awarding Enhanced Damages For Willful Patent Infringement," Porzio DC Client Alert, June 14, 2016.
"Dietary Supplement Legal Update," Porzio Dietary Supplement Legal Update, April 2016.
"Dietary Supplement Legal Update," Porzio Dietary Supplement Legal Update, December 2015.
"Claims Substantiation and the Bayer Case," NPA NOW, September 2015.
"What You Need to Know Now About R&D," Natural Products Insider, November 2, 2014.
"Passing Through the Patent 'Troll' Booth," Transport Topics, April 18, 2011.
"IP Crash Course for the Natural Products Industry," The Big Natural, Las Vegas, NV, June 8, 2017.
"Positioning for Success in a World of Commodities - Science Backed, Patent-Protected, Branded Ingredients," NIA-West Spring Conference, Montage Laguna Beach, CA, May 24, 2017.
"Revised New Dietary Ingredient Guidance," Natural Products Association webinar, August 17, 2016.
"What to Expect From FDA's Draft Guidance on NDIs," Natural Products Association webinar, January 20, 2016.
"Learn the Regulatory Playbook on Cosmetic Claims," Natural Products Association Expo East, Baltimore, MD, September 17, 2015.
"Patent Disputes 2012: Patent Reform and New Models for a New Market," West LegalEdcenter Patent Disputes Conference, Washington, DC, August 19, 2012.
"The Effect of U.S. Patent Reform on Patent Disputes," U.S. Patent Reform: Consequences for European Practitioners Seminar, Munich, Germany, April 3, 2012.
"U.S. Patent Reform: The New Standard," Webinar, October 3, 2011.

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