|
|
|
 |
|
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, et al. v. Hospira, Inc.
Mayne Pharma Limited
Winston represented Hospira in a patent litigation matter brought by Sanofi-Aventis to protect its blockbuster cancer drug Eloxatin™. A dozen makers of generic pharmaceutical products, including Hospira, had filed Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs), each one vying to be first to market with a generic version of the $1.5 billion-per-year drug. Under FDA regulations, Hospira’s product was “blocked” by only one patent, while all but one of Hospira’s co-defendants’ products were blocked by additional patents. Our team’s strategy permitted Hospira’s summary judgment motion on the single patent asserted against it to be heard first, despite strident and repeated opposition from both Sanofi-Aventis and the other defendants. Hospira won each
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eli Lilly Co. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC, et al.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
In another case widely reported in the press, our attorneys secured a win for Sun Pharmaceuticals in a two-week trial, beating Eli Lilly’s patent covering Strattera®, a leading ADHD drug that has generated more than $3 billion for Lilly. This victory clears the way for generic competition that otherwise would have been blocked until 2017.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Vulcan Golf v. Google, et al
Oversee.net
We successfully defended a nationwide putative class action against our client Oversee.net involving RICO, cybersquatting, and other trademark-related claims based on allegations that the defendants perpetrated a “deceptive domain” scheme whereby they registered and monetized domain names confusingly similar to registered and unregistered trademarks, as well as the personal names of individuals. Winston got the RICO claims dismissed, discouraged plaintiffs from seeking an injunction, defeated class certification, and then negotiated a nominal settlement with the named plaintiffs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Pharma S.A. and Sanofi-Aventis U.S. v. Hospira, Inc., Apotex, Inc., and Apotex Corp.
Mayne Pharma Limited
Winston won a ruling on behalf of our client Hospira knocking out two patents covering formulations for Sanofi's blockbuster drug Taxotere®, a leading cancer drug with $1.5 billion in annual sales in the U.S. alone. This decision will permit Hospira to launch generic versions of Taxotere at least three years earlier than originally planned. The savings to consumers will easily exceed $3 billion.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reddy v. MedQuist
MedQuist Inc.
We obtained summary judgment for MedQuist in a RICO lawsuit, seeking billions in damages, filed by a former employee in the Northern District of New Jersey. The lawsuit followed the company's announcement of findings of an independent review of customer billings and its de-listing from the NASDAQ stock exchange in 2004. The complaint was initially filed against MedQuist, its majority shareholder, Phillips, and certain current and former directors, and alleged numerous counts, most of which were dismissed at the pleading stage. The court then granted summary judgment on the remaining claims in favor of the company. Subsequently, the plaintiff tried to file a new action in the Southern District of California. However, the California district
|
|
|
|
|
|
Steiner v. MedQuist
MedQuist Inc.
We represented MedQuist in a shareholder securities fraud class action filed in the District of New Jersey on behalf of all persons who purchased MedQuist common stock from March 29, 2000 through June 14, 2004. In mid-2004, MedQuist issued a press release in which it announced that it was conducting an internal investigation, and may have overcharged some of its transcription customers. The company's stock was later delisted when, because of the ongoing investigation, the company did not file timely financial reports with the SEC. Based on these occurrences, the plaintiffs alleged that manipulations to MedQuist's client billing systems overcharged customers for medical transcription services, and that improperly inflated revenue numbers wer
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sun Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Eli Lilly, Co.
Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd.
In a case that garnered national press attention, Winston & Strawn defeated a patent covering one of Eli Lilly & Co.’s leading cancer drugs. On behalf of client Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Winston asserted that Lilly engaged in improper double patenting to protect Gemzar®, a blockbuster drug with annual sales exceeding $2 billion per year. Both the district court and the Federal Circuit agreed with Winston and invalidated the offending patent, which will allow generic competition to Gemzar® two-and-a-half years early.
|
|
|
|
|
|
SmithKline Beecham Corporation d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline v. Barr Labs. Inc.
Teva North America
We obtained a favorable settlement for client Teva/Barr Laboratories, Inc. in case filed by GlaxoSmithKline after Barr filed an Abbreviated New Drug Application seeking approval to market a generic version of the drug Dutasteride, which is used to treat benign prostatic hypertrophy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
ShuffleMaster v. VendingData
Elixir Gaming Technologies, Inc.
In 2004, the Nevada District Court granted ShuffleMaster?s motion for preliminary injunction in a patent infringement case against VendingData, thereby enjoining VendingData from manufacturing and marketing its Poker One card shuffler, a product critical to VendingData?s continuing success in the card shuffler market. VendingData immediately retained Winston & Strawn to file an emergency appeal with the Federal Circuit. Our attorneys persuaded the appeals court that the district court likely had erred in construing the patent claims, and the Federal Circuit granted VendingData?s motion to stay enforcement of the preliminary injunction order. Later, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court''s decision and vacated the preliminary injun
|
|
|
|
|
|
Billings, et al. v. British Petroleum
BP America, Inc.
We represented British Petroleum in a mass tort class action suit litigated in Los Angeles Superior Court brought by more than 400 individual plaintiffs who claimed that they were personally injured and suffered damages to their property arising out of BP’s operations of its Carson Refinery. Plaintiffs claimed BP committed unfair and fraudulent business practices and sought to certify both a medical monitoring and real property class. Plaintiffs claimed that BP operated the refinery negligently and allowed toxins to emit from the site causing them harm. The team got the class allegations stricken from the complaint, as well as plaintiffs’ hope for punitive damages and request for disgorgement of profits, all at the pleading stage. Additiona
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Select A Region
Search for an attorney.
