Source: https://www.gtlaw.com/de/professionals/p/pettus-richard-c
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 06:42:55+00:00

Document:
Richard C. Pettus is a trial lawyer with more than 20 years of experience in patent matters. He has represented clients in over 75 patent litigations, including more than a dozen trials to verdict that span a wide range of technologies, including pharmaceuticals, computer software and hardware, medical devices, semiconductors, polymers, “green” technology, energy and industrial equipment, fiber optics, chemical processes and consumer products.
In the biopharmaceutical and ANDA Hatch-Waxman area, Rich has served as lead counsel for companies such as Teva Pharmaceuticals, Baxter Healthcare, BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Boehringer-Ingelheim Vetmedica, B. Braun Medical Inc., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Emcure Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi, in matters involving small and large drug molecules, their polymorphic, enantiomeric and pegylated forms, combinations, uses and formulations as well as devices for injectable, oral and inhaled drug delivery, DNA constructs, vaccines, manufacturing processes and diagnostic kits. He also conducts Hatch-Waxman pre-litigation assessments to help prepare pharmaceutical clients for patent challenges.
Rich counsels Fortune 250 and emerging technology companies and investors on intellectual property management and other proprietary technology related issues, including strategies for patent due diligence, pre-litigation investigations, licensing and patent prosecution. He is also involved in the training of in-house legal and business/management teams on patent, Hatch-Waxman and life cycle management related issues.
Pernix Ireland Pain Ltd and Pernix Therapeutics, LLC v. Actavis Laboratories: Representing Actavis/Teva in Paragraph IV challenges of Pernix Ireland Pain Ltd.’s patents in the District of Delaware relating to Zohydro® extended release hydrocodone tablets indicated for the management of severe pain.
Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer v. Emcure Pharmaceuticals: Representing Emcure in the Paragraph IV challenge of patents covering the billion dollar Eliquis product in the District of Delaware.
LEO Pharma v. Actavis: Representing Actavis/Teva in a Paragraph IV challenge of multiple patents in the District of Delaware relating to Picato® gel used to treat actinic keratosis on the skin.
Mallinckrodt et al. v. B. Braun Medical Inc.: Representing B. Braun in a 505(b)(2) Paragraph IV challenge of the OFIRMEV intravenous paracetamol formulation and manufacturing process patents in the Districts of Delaware and the E.D. of Pennsylvania, including with respect to motions to dismiss for improper venue under TC Heartland, as well as for non-infringement and lack of standing.
Recro Gainesville LLC v. Actavis Laboratories FL Inc.: Representing Actavis/Teva in the appeal of a Paragraph IV challenge of in the Federal Circuit relating to Pernix’s patents on Zohydro® extended release hydrocodone tablets for the management of severe pain.
Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC v. B. Braun Medical Inc.: Represented B. Braun in connection with litigation involving its 505(b)(2) application for injectable propofol in the District of Delaware.
Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.: Represented Teva in Hatch-Waxman litigation in the District of Delaware involving the Orange Book patents for the DYMISTA nasal spray combination drug product.
Unimed Pharmaceuticals and Besins Healthcare v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories: Represented Dr. Reddy’s in a Paragraph IV challenge of the patents relating to AndroGel testosterone gel product in the District of Delaware.
Shire Development, LLC, et al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals et al.: Represented Actavis/Teva in appeal of Paragraph IV challenge of Shire Development’s patent relating to Lialda®, indicated for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with active, mild to moderate ulcerative colitis, wherein Federal Circuit found non-infringement.
Mallinckrodt LLC, et al. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.: Represented Actavis/Teva in a Paragraph IV challenge of Mallinckrodt LLC’s patents in the District of New Jersey relating to Xartemis® extended-release tablets for the treatment of acute pain requiring opioid treatment.
Aralez Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.: Represented Teva in Paragraph IV challenge of Aralez Pharmaceutical Inc.’s patents in the E.D. of Texas relating to the Yosprala® product for patients requiring aspirin for secondary prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and who are at risk of developing aspirin-associated gastric ulcers.
Duramed v. Mylan and Lupin: Lead trial counsel for Duramed/Teva in a Hatch Waxman action in the District of New Jersey involving extended regimen oral contraceptive products.
Hetero v. Glenmark: Defended Glenmark in the District of New Jersey against patent infringement claims relating to the antibiotic drug compound Linezolid.
Delavau v. Watson: Represented Delavau in patent infringement action brought in the E.D. of Pennsylvania involving dietary calcium fortification technologies.
Enzo Biochem. Inc., et al. v. Affymetrix, Roche Diagnostics, etc.: Represented Enzo Biochem in connection with multiple patent litigations in the S.D.N.Y. relating to methods and devices for labeling, hybridization and detection of nucleic acids.
Delavau v. J.M. Huber: Represented Delavau in preliminary injunction proceedings brought in the District of New Jersey involving nutraceutical tablets.
CareFusion 303 Inc. v. B. Braun Medical Inc.: Defended B. Braun against a claim for patent infringement by CareFusion 303 relating to intravenous medical valve devices. After prevailing on multiple discovery motions, we obtained substantial monetary sanctions against the plaintiff for discovery misconduct. In a very rare ruling, the court also granted B. Braun’s motion for summary judgment on its defense of laches, reducing the potential damages at trial by approximately 90-95 percent. Two days before trial the Court granted B. Braun’s motion to dismiss the case with prejudice as an evidentiary sanction against plaintiff and revoked the pro hac vice applications of counsel for plaintiff for a period of three years in the C.D.Ca.
Barry v. Medtronic Inc.: Represented Medtronic in a litigation involving surgical methods and systems for correcting severe spinal deformities in the E.D. of Texas.
Data Carriers v. BioMarin Pharmaceutical: Defended BioMarin in multi-defendant patent suit in the E.D. Texas concerning the alleged infringement by the company’s internal databases.
TLIF, LLP v. Aesculap Implant Systems: Defended Aesculap in patent suit in the E.D. Texas relating to spinal implants.
Rydex Technologies LLC v. B. Braun Medical Inc.: Represented B. Braun in multi-defendant patent lawsuit in the District of Delaware concerning electronic intravenous medical pump controls.
Electrical Prefab Systems v. Thomas & Betts: Currently representing patentee EPS in the assertion of patents covering open-back electrical junction boxes for pre-fab applications.
SkillSurvey v. Checkster: Represented the patentee SkillSurvey in the assertion of a patent in the E.D.Pa. covering a system for reference-checking.
Furuno v. Navico: Defended Navico in a patent lawsuit involving integrated computer systems for marine navigation.
Electrical Prefab Systems v. Cooper Crouse Hinds/Eaton: Represented patentee EPS in the assertion of patents covering open-back electrical junction boxes for pre-fab applications.
Lead counsel defending major electronics and cellular phone manufacturer in multi-defendant patent infringement lawsuit in the W.D. of Tennessee involving use of personalized user information for targeted advertising.
°The above representations were handled by Mr. Pettus prior to his joining Greenberg Traurig, LLP.
Prior to becoming an attorney, Mr. Pettus held engineering positions at IBM (T.J. Watson Advanced Silicon Technologies Laboratory), Allied-Signal (Aerospace Division), and Ebasco/Ratheon (Nuclear Power Systems Division).

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.