Source: http://findmedarticle.com/k/kelleydrye.com1.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 04:28:15+00:00

Document:
With clients ranging from multinational companies to entrepreneurial start-ups, the patent practice offers legal services in virtually every aspect of patent law. Representative clients include leaders in the fields of financial and information services, software development, consumer electronics and other goods, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, entertainment,nanotechnology software and technology, e-commerce, real estate and arts/education/non-profit. Kelley Drye has patent professionals in most of its offices, with a concentration in Stamford, Chicago and Washington, DC.
Kelley Drye’s patent practice includes a diverse group of attorneys and patent agents with technological backgrounds in the electrical, mechanical and chemical arenas. Most of Kelley Drye’s patent professionals have significant experience in industry and/or academia.
Many have advanced degrees (Master, Ph.D.) in their technological fields, and are experienced scientists and engineers.
Our patent litigation experience includes the following: Summary judgment granted to client in action against the USPTO on proposed rule changes relating to limitations on the number of patent claims and continuations in an application.
Attorneys in Kelley Drye’s Hatch-Waxman practice have a deep understanding of the drug approval and development process and are able to guide clients through the complexities of the Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (better known as the “Hatch-Waxman” Act), including its attendant intellectual property, technical, regulatory and antitrust aspects. Representative litigation Abbott Laboratories v. Mylan Inc. (N.D. Ill) (lopinavir/ritonavir)Abbott Laboratories v. Novartis Nutrition (N.D. Ill) (nutritional supplement)Abbott v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. (D.N.J.) (Depakote E.R)AHP v. Upjohn Co. (D.N.J.) (canine vaccine)AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Sandoz, Inc. (D.N.J. and Fed. Cir) (quetiapine)AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals (D.N.J.) (esomeprazole)AstraZeneca LP v. Lek Pharmaceuticals (S.D.N.Y.) (omeprazole)Cephalon, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (D.N.J.) (modafinil)Elan v. Corepharma (E.D.N.Y.) (metaxalone)Eli Lilly and Company v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. (D.N.J.) (Strattera)Forest Laboratories v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals (D. Del.) (memantine)Organon Pharmaceuticals v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals (D.N.J.) (mirtazapine)Orexo AB v. Mylan Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) (zolpidem)Pfizer, Inc. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals (D.N.J.) (gabapentin)Pfizer, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (D. Del.) (azithromycin)RCT v. Ben Venue Laboratories (D.N.J.) (cisplatin)Sanofi v. Sandoz, Inc. (D.N.J. and Fed Cir.) (oxaliplatin)Schering-Plough v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals (D.N.J. and Fed. Cir.) (loratadine)Sciele Pharma, Inc. v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals (D. Del.) (metformin)Sepracor, Inc. v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals (D.N.J.) (eszopiclone)Shionogi, Inc. v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals (D. Del.) (metformin)Shire Pharmaceuticals v. Mylan Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) (lanthanum carbonate)Taro Pharmaceuticals v. Synerx Pharma, LLC (D.N.J.) (malathion lotion)Teva Women's Health v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. (D.N.J.) (oral contraceptives)Teva v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. (D.N.J.) (carvedilol)Three Rivers Pharmaceuticals v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. (E.D.Va.) (ribavirin)Warner Chilcott v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals (D. Del.) (oral contraceptives) Successful assertion of Swedish shipping company's patent on ship hull design against the United States resulting in award of$3.2 million to client.
Successful defense of patent infringement suit. Settlement negotiated after Markman briefing and argument.
Represented defendant in patent infringement case pertaining to a phosphor and preparation process.
Successful defense of patent infringement suit; following Markman ruling construing claims in client’s favor, summary judgmentmotion granted dismissing suit.
Represented plaintiff in patent infringement suit involving a speaker independent system for unified communications viatelephone and Internet.
Successful defense of patent infringement action resulting in license to client for nominal fee.
Obtained an emergency stay followed by a judgment vacating preliminary injunction entered in the Northern District of California.
Successful settlement of claims asserting the world's largest semiconductor chip maker's chipset patents against foreigninfringer.

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