Biotechnology, Chemical, and Pharmaceutical

Overview

Our Biotechnology, Chemical, and Pharmaceutical team helps clients leverage their intellectual property assets to create maximum revenue and growth, along with a distinct competitive edge. BakerHostetler's experience covers an extensive array of industries encompassed within the chemical arts field, including both life sciences and industrial chemical applications. Our attorneys develop a thorough understanding of a client's specific technologies and overall business strategy, and assist them in outlining and implementing a proprietary rights strategy with a global perspective. We work with our clients to maximize the value of portfolios proactively, handling everything from portfolio management, licensing, and planning to litigation avoidance, third-party diligence, and evaluation issues.

Pharmaceutical

We handle all types of pharmaceutical products whether the product is a small molecule, biological, or combination drug and device invention, including formulations, delivery systems, and isomerisms. Our attorneys also vigorously enforce and defend clients' patent and exclusivity rights, through litigation, arbitration, or mediation whenever necessary.

Our client list includes large corporations, emerging pharmaceutical companies, and nonprofit institutions. Among our clients are Johnson & Johnson, Celgene, Amgen, Morphotek (now a part of Eisai), Cephalon (now a part of Teva), and Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Most of our attorneys have advanced degrees and backgrounds in the life sciences, making us proficient in every area of pharmaceutical technology from molecular biology, nucleic acid therapeutics, and genetics to small molecule NDEs, delivery devices and systems, treatment regimes, and combination platforms. We are as comfortable dealing with diagnostic arrays, stem cell technologies, immunology, and drug delivery vehicles as we are with classical pharmaceutical formulations.

In addition, we have extensive experience in Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA).

More »
Chemical

The chemical arts are inherent in a wide variety of industry sectors. BakerHostetler enhances the patent position of companies involved in making or selling industrial chemicals, ceramics, agricultural chemicals, drug delivery depots, small molecules, polymers, metal coatings, alloys, petrochemicals, personal care products, paints, medical implants, electronics, food products, and adhesives.

We counsel startups and smaller companies on ways to educate their scientists of patent law basics, developing patent and trademark portfolio strategies, surveying the competitive landscape, and staking out their territories. We also frequently assist in licensing the technology and, in some instances, navigating the federal regulatory pathways. Our attorneys advise large clients on how to handle the prosecution of specific cases or patent families that are particularly important or complex, or that require specific expertise.

Biotechnology

We have significant expertise and experience in the field of biotechnology and related biochemistry arts. Many of our firm's biotechnology lawyers hold advanced degrees in areas such as immunology, genetics, biochemistry, and molecular biology, as well as previously holding positions in the field as diverse as bench scientists, medical professionals, and corporate and university counsel. Their analyses and counseling are based upon substantial experience in biotechnology combined with a real understanding of business needs.

We represent a diverse group of clients, including many Fortune 500 pharmaceutical/biotech companies and universities in industries as diverse as biologic therapeutics, pharmaceuticals, plant and cell biology, food and agricultural sciences, and nanotechnology. We work with clients to develop a global patent strategy tailored to their unique needs that helps to ensure success in a competitive marketplace.

In addition to helping our clients obtain effective patent protection, we offer a full range of services encompassing patent enforcement and client counseling, including evaluation of patent validity, infringement, and freedom to operate. We assist clients in structuring agreements related to financing, licensing, and collaborative research, and also advise them on overcoming regulatory hurdles and protecting and exploiting patent rights.

We provide intellectual property strategy and planning services, opinions, clearance and right-to-use studies, U.S. and foreign patent preparation and prosecution, appeals, and, where appropriate, application guidance through reexamination or reissue and post-grant proceedings at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Select Experience

  • Represented the licenser of a breakthrough technology that provides rapid access to large numbers of genetically divergent organism lines, whereby several important technologies were retained by the owner and others were licensed to a major biotech enterprise, permitting much more effective exploitation of a proprietary portfolio.
  • Counseled numerous makers of pharmaceuticals and biologicals on patent issues attendant to FDA registration activities, assisting in navigating the difficult terrain surrounding Orange Book issues and ANDA challenges.
  • Evaluated, planned, and executed a landmark series of patent applications related to the distribution of teratogenically and otherwise dangerous pharmaceuticals that permit access to the pharmaceutical benefits while avoiding dangerous misdelivery of the drugs.
  • Successfully obtained dismissed of infringement claims based on administration of Hepatitis B vaccines in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC et al., CA WDQ 04-2607 (D. Md.).
  • Represented Phoenix Pharmacologics in litigation relating to the inventorship of PEGylated forms of arginine deiminase. Enzon Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Phoenix Pharmacologics Inc., 04-1285 (D. Del).
  • Successfully represented Cephalon Inc. in interference proceeding before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office concerning patents assigned to Genentech and Neuronz relating to the treatment of neural damage or disease using an insulin-like growth factor. Gluckman v. Lewis, Interference No. 104,553 (Bd. Patent App. and Interferences).
More »

Professionals

Name Title Office Email
Partner Washington, D.C.
Partner Philadelphia
Counsel Washington, D.C.
Associate Cincinnati
Partner Philadelphia
Associate Philadelphia
Partner Philadelphia
Associate Cincinnati
Associate Philadelphia
Partner Philadelphia
Associate Philadelphia
Partner Washington, D.C.
Counsel Philadelphia
Associate Philadelphia
Partner Cincinnati
Counsel Washington, D.C.
Partner Costa Mesa
Of Counsel Philadelphia
Partner Philadelphia
Partner Philadelphia
Partner Philadelphia
Partner Philadelphia
Partner Washington, D.C.
Partner Philadelphia
Partner Philadelphia
Associate Seattle
Patent Agent Atlanta
Partner Denver

Experience

  • Represented the licenser of a breakthrough technology that provides rapid access to large numbers of genetically divergent organism lines, whereby several important technologies were retained by the owner and others were licensed to a major biotech enterprise, permitting much more effective exploitation of a proprietary portfolio.
  • Counseled numerous makers of pharmaceuticals and biologicals on patent issues attendant to FDA registration activities, assisting in navigating the difficult terrain surrounding Orange Book issues and ANDA challenges.
  • Evaluated, planned, and executed a landmark series of patent applications related to the distribution of teratogenically and otherwise dangerous pharmaceuticals that permit access to the pharmaceutical benefits while avoiding dangerous misdelivery of the drugs.
  • Successfully obtained dismissed of infringement claims based on administration of Hepatitis B vaccines in Classen Immunotherapies Inc. v. Biogen IDEC et al., CA WDQ 04-2607 (D. Md.).
  • Represented Phoenix Pharmacologics in litigation relating to the inventorship of PEGylated forms of arginine deiminase. Enzon Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Phoenix Pharmacologics Inc., 04-1285 (D. Del).
  • Successfully represented Cephalon Inc. in interference proceeding before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office concerning patents assigned to Genentech and Neuronz relating to the treatment of neural damage or disease using an insulin-like growth factor. Gluckman v. Lewis, Interference No. 104,553 (Bd. Patent App. and Interferences).

Recognition

  • Chambers USA
    • Intellectual Property ‒ Ohio (2011 to 2020)
    • Intellectual Property ‒ Georgia (2017 to 2020)
    • Intellectual Property ‒ Pennsylvania (2007 to 2020)
    • Intellectual Property: Litigation ‒ District of Columbia (2015 to 2019)
    • Intellectual Property: Patent Prosecution ‒ District of Columbia (2015 to 2019)
    • Intellectual Property: Trademark & Copyright ‒ New York (2014 to 2020)
  • The Legal 500 United States
    • Intellectual Property – Copyright (2015 to 2020)
    • Intellectual Property – Patent Litigation: Full Coverage (2015 to 2020)
    • Intellectual Property – Patents: Prosecution (Including Re-Examination and Post-Grant Proceedings) (2015 to 2020)
    • Intellectual property – Trade Secrets (Litigation and Non-Contentious Matters) (2017 to 2020)
    • Intellectual property – Trademarks: Non-Contentious (Including Prosecution, Portfolio Management and Licensing) (2019, 2020)
  • Daily Report Intellectual Property Litigation Department of the Year (2017)
  • IAM Patent 1000 ‒ DC Metro Area (2015 to 2020); Georgia (2019, 2020); Illinois (2019, 2020); Pennsylvania (2015 to 2020); Washington (2015 to 2020)
  • WTR 1000 – The World's Leading Trademark Professionals ‒ Firm and attorney rankings (2013 to 2020)
  • U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms”
    • Copyright Law: National (2012 to 2020); Atlanta (2019, 2020); New York (2018 to 2020); Philadelphia (2014 to 2020)
    • Intellectual Property Law – Orlando (2011 to 2020)
    • Litigation – Intellectual Property: National (2012 to 2020); Chicago (2019, 2020); Cincinnati (2012 to 2020); Cleveland (2012 to 2020); Columbus (2017 to 2020); Houston (2018 to 2020); New York (2012 to 2020); Costa Mesa (2013 to 2020); Orlando (2012 to 2020); Philadelphia (2014 to 2020); Washington, D.C. (2017 to 2020)
    • Litigation – Patent: National (2014 to 2020); Chicago (2019, 2020); Cincinnati (2012 to 2020); Cleveland (2014 to 2020); Houston (2018, 2019); Philadelphia (2014 to 2020); Washington, D.C. (2014 to 2020)
    • Patent Law: National (2012 to 2020); Atlanta (2016 to 2020); Chicago (2020); Cincinnati (2012 to 2020); Philadelphia (2014 to 2020); Seattle (2017 to 2020); Washington, D.C. (2013 to 2020)
    • Trademark Law: National (2015 to 2020); Cleveland (2017 to 2020); New York (2017 to 2020); Philadelphia (2014 to 2020); Washington, D.C. (2017 to 2020)
  • Recognized as one of the top law firms for client service, BakerHostetler was named to the 2020 BTI Client Service 30 for the sixth consecutive year.

Blog

In The Blogs

Previous Next
IP Intelligence: Insight on Intellectual Property
A Pattern of Deceit? SCOTUS to Consider Whether Section 411(b) of the Copyright Act Imposes a Mental State Requirement Akin to Fraud
By Jacqueline M. Lesser
June 3, 2021
On June 1, 2021, the Supreme Court granted certiorari on the question of whether Section 411(b) of the Copyright Act is intended to be a “fraud” statute that requires scienter for cancellation of a copyright registration. See Unicolors...
Read More ->
IP Intelligence: Insight on Intellectual Property
USPTO Implementing Trademark Modernization Act
By Kevin M. Wallace, Deborah A. Wilcox
May 27, 2021
Earlier this month, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) issued a notice of proposed rule-making[1] to implement provisions of the Trademark Modernization Act (TMA), which Congress passed in December 2020.[2] The public...
Read More ->
IP Intelligence: Insight on Intellectual Property
Good Faith de minimis Use of a Mark May Defeat a Claim of Trademark Abandonment in the Fifth Circuit
By Robert B.G. Horowitz
May 11, 2021
In Perry v. H.J. Heinz Company, et al. (No. 20-30418 5th Cir. April 12, 2021), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit dealt with the issue of whether de minimis use can defeat a claim of trademark abandonment. It can, provided...
Read More ->
IP Intelligence: Insight on Intellectual Property
Bio-Rad Co-ownership Defense Fails at the CAFC
By John S. Hilten
May 10, 2021
On April 29, 2021, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC) affirmed an International Trade Commission (ITC) decision holding the importation and sale by Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. (Bio-Rad) of certain microfluidic...
Read More ->
IP Intelligence: Insight on Intellectual Property
Supreme Court to Decide Fate of Assignor Estoppel
By Stephanie M. Hatzikyriakou
May 3, 2021
In Hologic, Inc. v. Minerva Surgical, Inc. (Fed. Cir. April 22, 2020), the Federal Circuit declined the “invitation to ‘abandon the doctrine’ of assignor estoppel” and, after concluding that the district court did not abuse its discretion...
Read More ->