Brian W. Nolan

Representative District Court and Administrative Agency Experience

Lead counsel:

• District court patent infringement action relating to organic over-the-counter children and infant medicines. (Genexa, Inc. v. KinderFarms, LLC., C.D. Cal.)
• District court patent infringement action relating ULTOMIRIS® and a patent claiming methods of use for antibodies with specific binding profiles under different pH conditions (Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd v. Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc., D. Del.)
• Post-Grant Review proceeding brought against patent owner in organic OTC pharmaceutical products (KinderFarms LLC v. Genexa Inc., USPTO)
• Inter Partes Review proceeding brought against patent owner in the hemostasis point-of-care device space (HemoSonics LLC v. C.A. Casyso GmbH, USPTO)
• Inter Partes Review proceedings brought by competitors against patents covering innovative hemostasis point of care devices (Instrumentation Laboratory Co. v. HemoSonics LLC, USPTO)
• Federal and state trade secret action related to conference management software (eTouches, Inc. v. Swoogo LLC, D. Conn.)
• Inter Partes Review proceeding brought by generic pharmaceutical companies challenging the patent that covers the HIV protease inhibitor Lexiva® (Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd. v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., USPTO; Lupin Limited v. Vertex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., USPTO)
• Patent infringement dispute concerning drilling tools for oil wells (Schoeller-Bleckmann Oilfield Equipment AG v. Churchill Drilling Tools, Ltd., S.D. Tex.)
• Trademark matter concerning the design of fragrance bottles (Jivago, Inc. v. Perfume Network, Inc. et al., S.D.N.Y.)

Trial counsel:

• Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action relating to the HIV protease inhibitor Lexiva® (ViiV Healthcare and Vertex Pharmaceuticals v. Mylan, D. Del.)
• Various biotech patent disputes concerning the Cabilly patent family and the monoclonal antibodies Arzerra® and Benlysta® (Glaxo Group Ltd., GlaxoSmithKline and Lonza Biologics v. Genentech and City of Hope, C.D. Cal.; Genentech Inc. v. Glaxo Group Ltd., GlaxoSmithKline and Human Genome Sciences, C.D. Cal.)
• Biotech patent infringement action alleging infringement by the use of the monoclonal antibody Arzerra® to treat chronic lymphocytic leukemia (Biogen Idec, Inc. and Genentech v. GlaxoSmithKline et al., S.D. Cal.)
• Patent infringement, antitrust and trade secret dispute concerning bulk acoustic wave filter devices used in cellular devices (TriQuint Semiconductor v. Avago Technology, D. Ariz.)
• Patent dispute related to software encryption technology (Digital Reg of Texas, LLC, v. LFP Internet Group, LLC, E.D. Tex.)
• ITC patent infringement proceeding concerning data capture technology (In the matter of Certain Bar Code Scanners and Scan Engines, Components Thereof and Products Containing the Same, USITC)

Trial team member:

• Hatch-Waxman patent litigation involving the antibiotic Ceftin® (Glaxo Group Limited v. Apotex, Inc., N.D. Ill.)
• Various Hatch-Waxman cases related to the blockbuster anti-emetic drug Zofran® (Glaxo Group Limited and SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, Inc., D. Del.; Glaxo Group Limited and SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc., D.N.J.; Glaxo Group Limited and SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Kali Laboratories, D.N.J.; Glaxo Group Limited and SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Pliva, D. N.J.; Glaxo Group Limited and SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Sandoz, D.N.J.)
• Various ITC matters relating to blue laser technology. (In the matter of Certain Short-Wavelength Light Emitting Diodes, Laser Diodes and Products Containing Same; In the matter of Certain Short Wavelength Semiconductor Lasers and Products Containing the Same, USITC)

Representative Appellate Experience

• C. A. Casyso GmbH v. HemoSonics LLC, Appeal No. 20-1444 (Fed. Cir.)
• Schoeller‐Blckmann Oilfield Equipment AG v. Churchill Drilling Tools US, Inc., Appeal No. 17‐2137 (Fed. Cir.)
• Biogen Idec, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, 713 F.3d 1090 (Fed. Cir. 2013)
• Glaxo Group Limited et al. v. Kali Laboratories, Inc., Appeal No. 06-1026 (Fed. Cir.)
• Glaxo Group Limited et al. v Apotex, Inc., 376 F.3d 1339 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
• Pacific International Tool and Shear v. CertainTeed Corp., Appeal No. 04-1121 (Fed. Cir.)
• Glaxo Group Limited et al. v. Ranbaxy Pharmaceuticals Inc., 262 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
• II VI Incorporated v. Saint-Gobain Industrial Ceramics, Inc., Appeal No. 04-2389 (3rd Cir.)

Representative Transactional Experience

• Roivant Sciences as IP counsel in its licensing of PF-06480605 (now RVT-3101) and the creation of a new Vant for the development of RVT-3101 as a treatment for inflammatory bowel disease and its subsequent sale of Telavant to Roche for $7.1 billion.
• Roivant Sciences as IP counsel in its licensing of brepocitinib and the creation of Priovant Therapeutics for the development of brepocitinib as a treatment for autoimmune diseases.
• Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. by providing intellectual property counseling in its $74 billion acquisition of Celgene Corp.
• Roivant Sciences, Inc. in a transaction with Oncopia Therapeutics and related licensing from the University of Michigan for a target protein degradation platform with a subsequent $200 million investment by SK Holdings.
• Roivant Sciences, Inc. in an acquisition of an anti-GM-CSF antibody under development for the treatment of autoimmune diseases.
• Innovator pharmaceutical company with IP tasks associated with a $345 million Nasdaq offering.
• Roivant Sciences, Inc. by conducting IP and FDA due diligence in acquisition valued at over $500 million of a drug candidate for treatment of diabetes.
• Roivant Sciences, Inc. by conducting IP and FDA due diligence in acquisition of global rights for PA101 from Patara.
• Investment company in potential Series D investment in virtual reality and augmented reality technology.
• Investment company in Series B investment in company developing smart headphone technology.
• Medical device company in acquisition of point-of-care hemostasis device company.
• Foreign technology company in acquisition of patent portfolio related to semiconductor manufacturing deposition technology.
• Foreign technology company in acquisition of chemical vapor deposition assets.
• Investment company in Series B investment in company developing an ambulatory ventilation system.
• Investment company in Series E investment in company investigating deuterated versions of existing medicinal compounds to improve pharmacokinetic profiles.
• Investment company in Series B investment in company developing CAR-T technology.

Lehigh University, B.S.C.E.

Université de Fordham, JD

Barreau

• New York
• New Jersey

Tribunal

• US Patent and Trademark Office
• US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• US District Court for the District of New Jersey
• US District Court for the Southern District of New York
• US District Court for the Eastern District of New York