Source: https://www.leclairryan.com/intellectual-property/
Timestamp: 2019-04-21 15:04:59+00:00

Document:
In 2016, LeClairRyan was ranked among the top 10 law firms in the nation for life science patents by Juristat. Firms must have had at least 100 patent applications disposed of in the relevant art during the one-year period (June 13, 2014 – June 13, 2015) following the Myriad decision to be considered for this ranking. The firms are ranked by their average patent allowance rates in the biotechnology and organic chemistry areas. Juristat uses a proprietary natural language processing algorithm to build behavioral models of patent examiners’ past behaviors, allowing attorneys to more accurately predict examiners’ future behavior.
Our group skillfully handles intellectual property matters pertaining to a range of technologies in the electrical, mechanical, optical and computer science fields. We regularly assist our clients with the strategic procurement and management of their intellectual property assets domestically and internationally.
Our team of patent attorneys, agents, and technical specialists works across a range of technologies in the areas of life sciences, biotechnology, and chemistry. We believe in using attorneys, agents and technical specialists who possess levels of experience and knowledge that are appropriate to each task or phase of the project at hand. Many members of our team hold doctorate or master’s degrees in their fields.
We regularly assist our clients with the strategic procurement and management of their intellectual property assets domestically and internationally.
We represent our clients in many interferences, reexaminations, reissues and oppositions. This work has involved such proceedings individually, together and in conjunction with litigation.
Interferences are proceedings unique to U.S. patent law in which issues of who was first to make an invention and validity are resolved. Such disputes occur because the parties were separately engaged in research or were involved in a collaborative research program that became divisive.
Our team possesses vast experience with both types of disputes in the areas of pharmaceuticals, vaccines, nucleic acid arrays, transgenic plants, films, chemistry, filters and devices. Our representation has involved proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, arbitrators and federal courts.
The U.S. patent system provides for supplemental examinations, ex parte reexamination proceedings and inter partes review. These procedures permit requests for further examination or challenges concerning the patentability of U.S. patents before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. In particular, ex parte reexaminations require the patent challenger to file a request, which sets forth a substantial new question of patentability in ex parte reexamination. A petition for an inter partes review requires a showing of a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner will prevail on at least one challenged claim. Once granted, the requester’s participation is largely concluded in an ex parte proceeding, but continues in an inter partes review.
Our team is well versed in providing guidance to our clients on which of these proceedings to select based on cost, duration, objectives to be achieved, and effect of various estoppels. We also counsel our clients on the merits of whether they should challenge a patent through reexamination, inter partes review or patent litigation.
Reissue proceedings permit U.S. patent holders to correct errors in their patents. Generally, this involves narrowing a patent that is invalid or broadening a patent with claims that do not fully protect an invention. We not only represent clients in such proceedings, but also advise them on how best to use these procedures to maximize the benefit of a reissue application and achieve their strategic objective.
With the passage of the America Invents Act, opposition proceedings (called “post-grant review”) in the U.S. will apply to patents to which the first-to-file rules apply. Such proceedings have long been prevalent in Europe and Australia, and we have represented our clients’ interests in conjunction with counsel in those jurisdictions. Further, such foreign opposition proceedings often coincide with interferences and reexaminations in the U.S. We not only represent our clients’ interests in those U.S. proceedings, but coordinate them with foreign oppositions to ensure that consistent positions are taken in all such matters.
LeClairRyan’s intellectual property attorneys have an unusually strong grasp of the ever evolving and difficult area of trademark and licensing law, representing clients in the protection of their rights in trade names, trademarks, trade dress, good will, domain names, copyrights, trade secrets, manufacturing processes, know-how, and other confidential information. We strive to fashion cost-effective strategies and solutions that are innovative, practical, attuned to our clients’ business objectives (as well as the competitive environment in which they operate), and sensitive to the antitrust, franchise, tax and other issues that affect the handling of intangible assets.
Our intellectual property and technology litigators have worked on a variety of cases, including those involving pharmaceuticals, medical devices, X-ray films, biotechnology products, chemical compounds, recombinant DNA products, electrical products, industrial event monitoring systems, target systems, business operations software, cable television satellite signals, computer systems and information technology contracts.
In patent litigation, for example, our preferred approach is to match experienced intellectual property trial lawyers with knowledgeable patent attorneys and specialists, many of whom hold doctorate or master’s degrees in their fields. We have a deep bench of attorneys who have tried a large number of patent cases to verdict, and have experience both in pursuing infringement claims on behalf of patentees and defending against infringement allegations.
LeClairRyan represents and advises major corporations, healthcare organizations, financial services firms and government entities in their outsourcing of varied information technology functions and business processes. We combine our expansive knowledge of agreements pertaining to information technology and business processes with the experience of leading outsourcing consultants, providing our clients with cost-effective results.
Obtained basic patent protection on the active pharmaceutical ingredient in Allegra, which was licensed by our client Albany Molecular Research, Inc. to what is now Sanofi. We represented our client in two interference proceedings, numerous license negotiations, and a series of patent infringement actions in the United States and elsewhere. This work helped our client grow from 10 employees to over 500 employees.
Represented client in preparing for an interference relating to a process of making microporous filters. In view of our efforts, our opponent conceded that our client would prevail.
Bence v. Mathews (Interference No. 105,680): an interference involving a coaxial cable connector that includes a separate grounding element to ensure proper grounding of the connector. We represented the senior party Bence. This interference was resolved using binding arbitration by a third party neutral who made decision in favor of our client.
Noguchi v. Zhang (Interference No. 105,339): an interference involving a method of manufacturing a thin film transistor of a semiconductor device. We represented the senior party Zhang. The interference was resolved by settlement in favor of our client.
Johnston v. Beachy; Johnston v. McCormick (Interference Nos. 104,286 and 104,400): a pair of related patent interferences involving recombinant genetic engineering used for generating pathogen resistant plants. We represented the junior party Johnston.
Rose v. Lowy; Rose v. Schlegel; Rose v. Frazer (Interference Nos. 103,771, 103,772, and 103,773): three related patent interferences involving recombinant genetic engineering used for generating an empty protein shell (or capsid) of a papillomavirus. The empty capsid, known as a virus-like particle, is used as vaccine component for generating immunological resistance against papillomavirus infections, particularly for those papillomaviruses known to be linked to various forms of cancer. We represented the junior party Rose. We obtained a favorable ruling on a preliminary motion that caused our adversary’s licensee to enter into a cross-license with our client’s licensee, resulting in our client receiving royalties from both licensees.
Barany v. McGall (Interference No. 105,351): an interference involving oligonucleotide arrays that include oligonucleotide analogue probes or targets. We represented the junior party Barany and, in the process of doing so, we invalidated our opponent’s patent so that our client had freedom to operate.

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