Aperçu

Richard McCormick is a partner in the New York office of Mayer Brown's Intellectual Property practice. He has represented innovator pharmaceutical, biotech, and medical device companies in patent infringement and licensing dispute matters, including Hatch-Waxman litigations and inter partes reviews in the Patent Office. Richard has also advised clients on FDA regulatory issues implicating the patent laws, prepared patent validity/enforceability and freedom-to-operate opinions, and performed patent due diligence in connection with pre-litigation assessments, IP in-licensing and M&A transactions.

Before beginning his legal career, Richard was a Ph.D. candidate in biochemistry before becoming a research associate in the Department of Molecular Biology at Princeton University and the Department of Pediatric Oncology at the Dana-Farber Cancer Institute. Richard's knowledge base in the life sciences encompasses biochemistry, molecular and cellular biology, molecular genetics, protein chemistry, pharmacology, pharmaceutical formulation and controlled drug delivery, pharmaceutical solid state chemistry, small molecule drug discovery, RNA interference and antisense technology, and the production and characterization of recombinant therapeutic proteins (including antibodies).

Domaines d'intérêt

Domaines d’intervention
Secteurs d'activité

Langues

  • Anglais

Expérience

Representative Litigation and Trial Experience:

  • Genzyme v. Genentech and City of Hope, C.D. Cal. (2015) and related Inter Partes Reviews

  • Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals v. Genentech and City of Hope, C.D. Cal. (2015) and related Inter Partes Review

  • Washington Research Foundation v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, W.D. Wash. (2015)

  • Bristol‐Myers Squibb v. Genentech and City of Hope, C.D. Cal. (2013)

  • ViiV Healthcare v. Mylan Inc., D. Del. (2012)

  • Genentech Inc. v. Glaxo Group Ltd., GlaxoSmithKline and Human Genome Sciences, C.D. Cal. (2011)

  • Glaxo Group Ltd, GlaxoSmithKline and Lonza Biologics v. Genentech and City of Hope, C.D. Cal. (2010)

  • Biogen Idec, Inc. and Genentech v. GlaxoSmithKline et al., S.D. Cal. (2010)

  • Lectec Corp. v. Chattem Inc. et al., E.D. Tex. (2008)

  • LG Household & Health Care Ltd. et al. v. Warner Lambert Company LLC et al., D.N.J. (2007)

  • Lupin Limited v. Abbott Laboratories et al., E.D. Va. (2006)

  • Spectralytics, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., D. Minn. (2005)

  • Alza Corp. v. Impax Labs., Inc., N.D. Cal. (2003)

  • Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs. and Mylan Pharms., N.D. W. Va. (2003) and Fed. Cir. (2005)

  • Alza Corp. and Janssen Pharmaceutica v. Mylan Labs. et al., D. Vt. (2002) and Fed. Cir. (2004)

  • Nextec Applications v. Marmot Mountain, Ltd, S.D. Cal. (2001)

  • Pfizer Inc. and Alza Corp. v. Andrx Corp., S.D. Fla. (2001)

  • Polytek Development Corp. v. Smooth-On, Inc., E.D. Pa. (1999)

  • Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., D. Del. (1999) and Fed Cir. (2001)

Actualités

  • September/October 2007

    It's Not Obvious How Much KSR Changed Anything

    IP Litigator
  • Winter 2007

    KSR v. Teleflex in the Supreme Court – The Outcome Is Not So Obvious

    25 ABA IPL Newsletter 3

Events

  • février 27
    2020

    Hot Topics in Life Sciences Law Symposium

  • May 2011

    Recent Hatch-Waxman Cases: Generic Challenges to Orange Book Patent Listings and Forfeiture of 180-Day Exclusivity (with Lisa M. Ferri)

    American Conference Institute, 5th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes

  • 2007

    Obviousness after KSR v. Teleflex: The Patent Litigation Perspective (with Jeffrey I. D. Lewis)

    AIPLA 2007 Spring Meeting

View All Events

Presse

Formation

Boston College Law School, JD

Fordham University, BS
Dean's List

Inscriptions au Barreau

Barreau

  • New York
  • Massachusetts