Search Our Website:
menu
Matthew L. Fedowitz
BIPC Logo

Matthew L. Fedowitz

Shareholder

Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group Co-Leader

P: 202 452 7306
Washington, DC
 
 
 
REACH OUT ON LINKEDIN
DOWNLOAD vCARD
PRINT MY BIO

Visit for insights and updates on USPTO PTAB.
  • Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited et al v. Airgas Therapeutics LLC et al. 1-22-cv-01648 (District of Delaware)
  • AbbVie Inc. et al v. Alkem Laboratories Limited et al. DDE-1-22-cv-01423 (District of Delaware)
  • Covis Pharma GmbH et al v. Eugia Pharma Specialties Ltd. et al., 1-21-cv-00003 (District of Delaware)
  • H. Lundbeck A/S et al. v. MSN Laboratories Private Limited et al. Civil Action No.: 1-18-cv-00114 (District of Delaware)
  • Forest Laboratories, LLC f/k/a Forest Laboratories, Inc. et al v. MSN Laboratories Private Limited et al. Civil Action No.: 2-17-cv-10140 (District of New Jersey)
  • Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. MSN Laboratories Private Limited et al. Civil Action No.: 3-18-cv-00675 (District of New Jersey)
  • Bayer Intellectual Property GMBH, et al vs Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. et al.Civil Action No.: 1:15-cv-00902-SLR (District of Delaware)
  • OSI Pharmaceuticals, LLC et al. vs Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. and Natco Pharma Ltd. Civil Action No.: 1:15-cv-00772-SLR-SRF (District of Delaware)
  • Ferring B.V., et al. vs Actavis, Inc., et al. Civil Action No.: 2:15-cv-04222-KSH-CLW (District of New Jersey)
  • Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd vs Actavis, Inc. Civil Action No.: 1:14-cv-07106 (District of New Jersey)
  • Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation and Novartis AG vs Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. Civil Action No.: 1:14-cv-01043 (District of Delaware)
  • Sanofi and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Alembic Pharmaceuticals Limited, Civil Action No.: 14-424 (District of Delaware)
  • Hospira, Inc. and Orion Corporation vs Intas Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Accord Healthcare, Inc. USA, Civil Action No.: 1:14-cv-336 (Middle District of North Carolina)
  • Acorda Therapeutics, Inc., et al. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc., et al. Civil Action No.: 1:14-cv-00932-LPS (District of Delaware)
  • G.D. Searle LLC and Pfizer Asia Pacific Pte. Ltd. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., et al. Case No. 2:13-cv-121 (Eastern District of Virginia)
  • Horizon Pharma AG and Jagotec AG v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., Florida. Case No. 1:13-cv-05124 (District of New Jersey)
  • Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al. v. Cipla Limited. Case No. 1:12-CV-06350 (Southern District of New York)
  • Gilead Sciences, Inc. et al. v. Cipla Limited. Case No. 1:12-CV-06351 (Southern District of New York)
  • Pfizer et al. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc., Alembic Ltd., et al. Case No. 1:12-CV-00810 (District of Delaware)
  • Ferring B.V. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., Florida. Case No. 3:11-CV-00481 (District of Nevada)
  • Warner Chilcott Company and Warner Chilcott (US), LLC v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., Florida. Case No. 11-5989 (District of New Jersey)
  • Reckitt Benckiser, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., Florida, Case No. 09-60609 (Southern District of Florida)
  • In re Brimonidine Patent Litigation, Civil Action No. 07-MD-01866 (District of Delaware)
  • Certain Sucralose, Sweeteners Containing Sucralose, and Related Intermediate Compounds Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-604 - Represented six different respondents, including two manufacturers in China, in a case brought by Tate & Lyle alleging infringement of process patents relating to the production of sucralose and certain intermediate compounds. In September 2008, the ALJ issued an initial determination finding no violation by our clients based on non-infringement and other grounds. On April 4, 2009, after a full review of the decision, the commission upheld the ALJ's findings that there was no violation of Section 337, resulting in a complete victory for our clients.
  • Yu et al (Human Genome Sciences, Inc.) v. Browning et al (Biogen Idec) Browning v. Yu, Interference No. 105,485 - Represented Human Genome Sciences in an interference proceeding relating to LymphoStat-B, a human monoclonal antibody that inhibits the biological activity of B-lymphocyte stimulator (BLyS), before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
  • Enzo Therapeutics, Inc. v. Yeda Research & Dev. Co., (Eastern District of Virginia) 467 F. Supp.2d 579, 477 F. Supp.2d 699 - Represented Yeda Research and Development Co. in a 146 Action involving interferon-β2
  • DeLucas (Fluidigm Corp.) v. Santarsiero (Takeda San Diego), Interference No. 105,403 - Represented Fluidigm Corp. in an interference where the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences invalidated more than 400 claims from Takeda San Diego's patents