Source: https://www.bipc.com/erin-dunston
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 06:35:58+00:00

Document:
Erin M. Dunston focuses her practice on inter partes reviews, interferences, district court litigation, opinions and prosecution — primarily in the fields of biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Her litigation practice includes classic infringement and declaratory judgment cases, as well as Paragraph IV cases. She is a member of the firm's Associates' Committee.
From 2014 to 2018, Erin was recognized in IAM’s Patent 1000 list – the best-in-class listing of patent prosecution, licensing, and litigation practitioners and from 2014 to 2018 as an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property. From 2014 to 2016, Erin has been named a Leading Intellectual Property Lawyer by Chambers USA. Erin also received Lawyer Monthly’s Women in Law 2016 Award for her contributions to the practice of biotechnology law. She was also selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America list in 2018 and 2019.
Erin has assisted in more than 40 interferences before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. As a result, she is knowledgeable on all phases of interference work, ranging from pre-request analyses to preparation for and participation at final hearings and subsequent appeals to the Federal Circuit.
Erin’s significant interference experience before the PTAB serves as a useful backdrop to the America Invents Act post-grant proceedings, including inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews, covered business method patent reviews, and derivation matters. Erin has handled IPRs for both patent owners and petitioners.
In addition to the IPR matters that Erin is working on, she was also a panelist on the inaugural PTAB AIA Roundtable, held on April 15, 2014 at the United States Patent and Trademark Office. The panel discussed AIA trial statistics, lessons learned and techniques for successful motions practice. The fact pattern used at that roundtable, and all subsequent PTAB roundtables throughout the country, was initially drafted by Erin for a Pauline Newman Inn of Court meeting titled “Concurrent Post-Grant Proceedings: Dos, Don’ts, and Tips for Creating a Strong Record for Appeal or Civil Action,” where Erin moderated a panel of judges and practitioners. Erin served as a panelist in April of 2016 for a PTO 'Boardside Chat' on the recent rule amendments.
To help to ensure familiarity with current patent practice and to complement her litigation, post-grant, and interference work, Erin maintains a significant patent prosecution docket. Erin has experience in all phases of patent prosecution, from pre-filing investigations and application drafting to appeals to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board and Federal Circuit.
In re Brimonidine Patent Litigation, 643 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011), 666 F. Supp.2d 429 (D. Del. 2009) — Representing Exela PharmSci., Inc. in a patent infringement action under the Hatch-Waxman Act brought by Allergan regarding brimonidine tartrate used to lower intra-ocular pressure and alleviate glaucoma; Federal Circuit finding of no infringement.
Brassica Protection Products LLC and The Johns Hopkins University v. Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54135 (Southern District of New York) — Represented Brassica in a patent infringement case regarding chemoprotective cruciferous extracts.
University of Pittsburgh of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education v. Marc H. Hedrick et al., Civil Action No. 2:04-cv-9014 (Central District of California June 9, 2008) — Represented co-inventors of adipose-derived stem cells from the Regents of the University of California in action to correct inventorship.
Enzo Therapeutics, Inc. v. Yeda Research & Dev. Co., 467 F. Supp.2d 579, 477 F. Supp.2d 699 (Eastern District of Virginia 2006, 2007) — Represented Yeda Research and Development Co. in a 146 Action involving interferon-β2.
Rhodia Chimie and Rhodia Inc. v. PPG Industries, Inc., 402 F.3d 1371 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2005) — Represented Rhodia Chimie and Rhodia Inc. in a patent infringement action concerning precipitated silica.
Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18361 (Southern District Court of Indiana) — Represented Lilly in patent infringement action under the Hatch-Waxman Act, finding defendants to have willfully infringed Lilly's patent covering Nizatidine and the product AXID®.
Novo Nordisk A/S v. Eli Lilly & Co., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18690 (District of Delaware) — Represented Eli Lilly in a declaratory judgment action by a competitor for non-infringement and invalidity of Lilly's patent on the rapid-acting human insulin analog formulation, insulin lispro [rDNA origin] and the product Humalog®.

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