T +1 212 819 8893
Ryan Johnson is a member of the Firm's Intellectual Property practice. He represents clients in complex intellectual property litigation, frequently in the context of pharmaceutical patent infringement cases arising under the Hatch-Waxman act. Ryan has also represented clients in the telecommunications industry in patent infringement matters. In addition, he advises clients on the intellectual property-related aspects of acquisitions and other transactions.
Before attending law school, Mr. Johnson researched experimental recombinant DNA vaccines for the HIV virus. He also spent several years working for a leading consumer products company as a product- and process-development engineer.
Representation of Pfizer in a series of consolidated cases concerning three patents covering Pfizer's drug Lyrica®. After a two-week bench trial, the US District Court for the District of Delaware found all three patents valid and infringed by all eight generic manufacturer defendants. 'Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.', F. Supp. 2d, 2012 WL 2951367 (D. Del. Jul. 19, 2012).
Representation of Pfizer in litigation with two generic manufacturer defendants concerning a patent covering the active ingredient in Pfizer's drugs Detrol® and Detrol® LA. After a five-day bench trial, the US District Court for the District of New Jersey rejected all of the defendants' challenges to Pfizer's patent. 'Pfizer Inc. v. IVAX Pharmaceuticals, Inc.', 2010 WL 339042 (D.N.J. Jan. 20, 2010).
Representation of foreign wireless telecommunications carriers as defendants in a patent infringement action involving over 130 parties. The US District Court for the District of Maryland granted our motion to dismiss the foreign carriers for lack of personal jurisdiction. 'Technology Patents, LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG', 573 F. Supp. 2d 903 (D. Md. 2008).
Representation of Pfizer in a series of cases against generic manufacturer defendants concerning controlled-release formulation patents covering Pfizer's drug Detrol® LA. The cases settled favorably for Pfizer after the US District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled in Pfizer's favor on every disputed claim construction issue. 'Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.', F. Supp. 2d, 2012 WL 1232302 (D.N.J. Apr. 12, 2012).
Representation of Pfizer as defendant in a declaratory judgment action brought by a generic manufacturer against an un-asserted pharmaceutical formulation patent. The US District Court for the District of New Jersey granted our motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. 'Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc.', 2011 WL 4594824 (D.N.J. Sept. 30, 2011).
Proactive Intellectual Property Protection in the People's Republic of China, 38 Connecticut Law Review 1005 (2006), Reprinted in 54 Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA 591 (2007) (awarded National First Prize, 2007 Nathanial Burkan Memorial Copyright Writing Competition).