T +1 212 819 8893
Ryan Johnson represents clients in complex intellectual property litigation. He has extensive experience trying pharmaceutical patent infringement cases arising under the Hatch-Waxman act. He also represents pharmaceutical companies in antitrust actions arising out of prior patent cases.
Mr. Johnson has also represented clients in the consumer products, telecommunications, and high-tech industries in patent infringement matters. He also advises clients on the intellectual property-related aspects of acquisitions and other transactions.
Mr. Johnson's undergraduate degree is in Biotechnology. Before attending law school, he researched experimental recombinant DNA vaccines for the HIV virus. He also spent several years working for a leading consumer products company as a product formulator and process development engineer.
Represented Novo Nordisk in an Inter Partes Review concerning methods of nanofiltering recombinant therapeutic proteins. The PTAB upheld all challenged claims in Novo Nordisk's patent. Laboratoire Francais du Fractionnement et des Biotechnologies S.A. v. Novo Nordisk Healthcare AG, IPR2017-00028, Paper No. 53 (PTAB April 5, 2018).
Represented Pfizer Inc. and UCB Pharma GmbH at trial in a patent infringement case against five generic manufacturers concerning Toviaz®. The US District Court for the District of Delaware ruled in our clients' favor on all issues. Pfizer Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 13-1110-GMS, 2016 WL 1611377 (D. Del. Apr. 20, 2016).
Represented Pfizer Inc. and UCB Pharma GmbH in a second patent infringement trial concerning Toviaz®. At the close of evidence, the Court issued a general verdict from the bench in favor of our clients all issues. Pfizer Inc. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc., No. 15-79-GMS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125634 (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2017).
Represented UCB Pharma GmbH in five Inter Partes Review proceedings concerning patents covering the drug Toviaz. The PTAB upheld all challenged claims in all five UCB patents. Mylan Pharm. Inc. v. UCB Pharma GmbH, IPR2016-00510, Paper 45; IPR2016-00512, Paper 37; IPR2016-00514, Paper 38; IPR2016-00516, Paper 37; IPR2016-00517, Paper 37 (PTAB July 19, 2017).
Represented Pfizer at trial in a patent infringement case against eight generic manufacturers concerning Lyrica®. The US District Court for the District of Delaware ruled in Pfizer's favor on all issues. Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., 882 F. Supp. 2d 643 (D. Del. 2012), aff'd 555 Fed. Appx. 961 (2014).
Represented Pfizer at trial in a patent infringement case concerning Detrol® and Detrol® LA. The US District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled in Pfizer's favor on all issues. Pfizer Inc. v. IVAX Pharms., Inc., 2010 WL 339042 (D.N.J. Jan. 20, 2010).
Represented Pfizer in a series of cases concerning controlled release formulation patents covering 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., 855 F. Supp. 2d 286 (D.N.J. 2012).
Represented Novo Nordisk in Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings concerning PEGylation of therapeutic proteins.
Representing IBSA Institut Biochimique and Altergon S.A. in pending patent litigation concerning the drug Tirosint®. IBSA Institut Biochimique, S.A. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., No. 18-555-LPS (D. Del.).
Represented Altergon SA, IBSA Institut Biochemique, and Teikoku Seiyaku Co. in patent infringement litigation concerning the drug Flector®. Altergon SA v. Actavis Labs. UT, Inc., No. 15-883-RGA (D. Del.).
Represented Pfizer in a class action lawsuit concerning the drug Celebrex® arising under federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws. In re Celebrex Antitrust Litigation, Nos. 14-361 & 14-395 (E.D. Va.).
Representing Allergan in a class action antitrust lawsuit concerning the drug Namenda®. In re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 15-CV-07488-CM-RWL (S.D.N.Y.).
Represented 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, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. Technology Patents, LLC v. Deutsche Telekom AG, 573 F. Supp. 2d 903 (D. Md. 2008).
Represented Avon in various patent infringement matters, including a case concerning internet encryption technology. TQP Development v. Avon Products, Inc., 12-617-JRG-RSP (E.D. Tex.).
Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., discussing the District Court decision on the patent negotiation and notice provisions of the BPCIA, Apr. 8, 2015
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)