Richard C. Pettus

Richard C. Pettus

Shareholder

Richard C. Pettus is a trial lawyer with more than 20 years of experience in patent matters. He has represented clients in over 75 patent litigations, including more than a dozen trials to verdict that span a wide range of technologies, including pharmaceuticals, computer software and hardware, medical devices, semiconductors, polymers, “green” technology, energy and industrial equipment, fiber optics, chemical processes and consumer products.

In the biopharmaceutical and ANDA Hatch-Waxman area, Rich has served as lead counsel for companies such as Teva Pharmaceuticals, Baxter Healthcare, BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Boehringer-Ingelheim Vetmedica, B. Braun Medical Inc., Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Emcure Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline, Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, and Sanofi, in matters involving small and large drug molecules, their polymorphic, enantiomeric and pegylated forms, combinations, uses and formulations as well as devices for injectable, oral and inhaled drug delivery, DNA constructs, vaccines, manufacturing processes and diagnostic kits. He also conducts Hatch-Waxman pre-litigation assessments to help prepare pharmaceutical clients for patent challenges.

Rich counsels Fortune 250 and emerging technology companies and investors on intellectual property management and other proprietary technology related issues, including strategies for patent due diligence, pre-litigation investigations, licensing and patent prosecution. He is also involved in the training of in-house legal and business/management teams on patent, Hatch-Waxman and life cycle management related issues.

Concentrations

  • Patent litigation
  • ANDA Hatch-Waxman
  • General IP counseling, licensing, due diligence and opinions
  • Global energy and infrastructure
Read More +

Capabilities

Experience

 
  • Pernix Ireland Pain Ltd and Pernix Therapeutics, LLC v. Actavis Laboratories:  Representing Actavis/Teva in Paragraph IV challenges of Pernix Ireland Pain Ltd.’s patents in the District of Delaware relating to Zohydro® extended release hydrocodone tablets indicated for the management of severe pain.
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer v. Emcure Pharmaceuticals: Representing Emcure in the Paragraph IV challenge of patents covering the billion dollar Eliquis product in the District of Delaware.
  • LEO Pharma v. Actavis: Representing Actavis/Teva in a Paragraph IV challenge of multiple patents in the District of Delaware relating to Picato® gel used to treat actinic keratosis on the skin.
  • Mallinckrodt et al. v. B. Braun Medical Inc.: Representing B. Braun in a 505(b)(2) Paragraph IV challenge of the OFIRMEV intravenous paracetamol formulation and manufacturing process patents in the Districts of Delaware and the E.D. of Pennsylvania, including with respect to motions to dismiss for improper venue under TC Heartland, as well as for non-infringement and lack of standing.
  • Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc.: Representing Actavis/Teva in the trial and appeal of its Paragraph IV challenge to Orexigen Therapeutics’ patents in the District of Delaware relating to Contrave® extended-release tablets for the treatment of obesity.
  • Recro Gainesville LLC v. Actavis Laboratories FL Inc.: Representing Actavis/Teva in the appeal of a Paragraph IV challenge of in the Federal Circuit relating to Pernix’s patents on Zohydro® extended release hydrocodone tablets for the management of severe pain.
  • Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC v. B. Braun Medical Inc.: Represented B. Braun in connection with litigation involving its 505(b)(2) application for injectable propofol in the District of Delaware.
  • Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.: Represented Teva in Hatch-Waxman litigation in the District of Delaware involving the Orange Book patents for the DYMISTA nasal spray combination drug product.
  • Unimed Pharmaceuticals and Besins Healthcare v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories: Represented Dr. Reddy’s in a Paragraph IV challenge of the patents relating to AndroGel testosterone gel product in the District of Delaware.
  • Shire Development, LLC, et al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals et al.: Represented Actavis/Teva in appeal of Paragraph IV challenge of Shire Development’s patent relating to Lialda®, indicated for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with active, mild to moderate ulcerative colitis, wherein Federal Circuit found non-infringement.
  • Mallinckrodt LLC, et al. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.: Represented Actavis/Teva in a Paragraph IV challenge of Mallinckrodt LLC’s patents in the District of New Jersey relating to Xartemis® extended-release tablets for the treatment of acute pain requiring opioid treatment.
  • Aralez Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.: Represented Teva in Paragraph IV challenge of Aralez Pharmaceutical Inc.’s patents in the E.D. of Texas relating to the Yosprala® product for patients requiring aspirin for secondary prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and who are at risk of developing aspirin-associated gastric ulcers.
  • Duramed v. Mylan and Lupin: Lead trial counsel for Duramed/Teva in a Hatch Waxman action in the District of New Jersey involving extended regimen oral contraceptive products.
  • Baxter v. Minrad: Trial counsel for Baxter in an ANDA Hatch-Waxman challenge to a patent covering the highly volatile Desflurane liquid anesthetic drug product in the District of Delaware. °
  • Boehringer-Ingelheim Vetmedica v. Norbrook: Lead counsel for animal health pharmaceutical company in “Green Book” Paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman challenge to patent covering liquid oral suspension formulations of anti-inflammatory drug product in the W.D. Missouri. Resolved by pro-competitive settlement. °
  • GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva: Trial counsel for GSK in ANDA Hatch-Waxman challenge to patents covering billion dollar ZOFRAN anti-nausea and vomiting drug products in the District of Delaware. Settled following bench trial and Federal Circuit appeal. °
  • GlaxoSmithKline v. Dr. Reddy’s: Trial counsel for GSK in ANDA Hatch-Waxman challenge to molecule and method of use patents as well as a declaratory judgment action on its manufacturing process patent. Settled following two-week bench trial. °
  • Glaxo v. Novopharm: Participated in the enforcement of patents covering one of the world’s best-selling drugs of the 1990’s, Zantac, for a Glaxo against multiple generic competitors seeking ANDA approval. °
  • Conducted confidential ANDA pre-litigation evaluations on behalf of pharmaceutical companies of patent portfolios covering compounds, combination products and associated drug formulations and delivery technology. Based on this work, handled interference proceedings involving certain patents in one of the portfolios. °
  • Hetero v. Glenmark: Defended Glenmark in the District of New Jersey against patent infringement claims relating to the antibiotic drug compound Linezolid.
  • Delavau v. Watson: Represented Delavau in patent infringement action brought in the E.D. of Pennsylvania involving dietary calcium fortification technologies.
  • Enzo Biochem. Inc., et al. v. Affymetrix, Roche Diagnostics, etc.: Represented Enzo Biochem in connection with multiple patent litigations in the S.D.N.Y. relating to methods and devices for labeling, hybridization and detection of nucleic acids.
  • Delavau v. J.M. Huber: Represented Delavau in preliminary injunction proceedings brought in the District of New Jersey involving nutraceutical tablets.
  • Takeda v. Atrix Labs. and Sanofi: Lead trial (jury and bench) counsel for Sanofi in an action in the N.D. of Illinois involving an injectable (subcutaneous and intramuscular) sustained release biodegradable polymer drug delivery patent. °
  • Glaxo v. 3M: Represented Glaxo in multiple litigations in the Districts of Minnesota and the M.D. of North Carolina involving patents relating to hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) metered-dose asthma inhaler formulations resulting in global cross-license. °
  • CareFusion 303 Inc. v. B. Braun Medical Inc.: Defended B. Braun against a claim for patent infringement by CareFusion 303 relating to intravenous medical valve devices. After prevailing on multiple discovery motions, we obtained substantial monetary sanctions against the plaintiff for discovery misconduct.  In a very rare ruling, the court also granted B. Braun’s motion for summary judgment on its defense of laches, reducing the potential damages at trial by approximately 90-95 percent.  Two days before trial the Court granted B. Braun’s motion to dismiss the case with prejudice as an evidentiary sanction against plaintiff and revoked the pro hac vice applications of counsel for plaintiff for a period of three years in the C.D.Ca.
  • Barry v. Medtronic Inc.: Represented Medtronic in a litigation involving surgical methods and systems for correcting severe spinal deformities in the E.D. of Texas.
  • Data Carriers v. BioMarin Pharmaceutical: Defended BioMarin in multi-defendant patent suit in the E.D. Texas concerning the alleged infringement by the company’s internal databases.
  • TLIF, LLP v. Aesculap Implant Systems: Defended Aesculap in patent suit in the E.D. Texas relating to spinal implants.
  • Rydex Technologies LLC v. B. Braun Medical Inc.:  Represented B. Braun in multi-defendant patent lawsuit in the District of Delaware concerning electronic intravenous medical pump controls.
  • GlaxoSmithKline v. ASO: Obtained Consent Judgment in the District of Delaware as lead counsel for GSK in the successful assertion of a patent covering market-leading BreatheRight medical adhesive strips for nasal dilation.°
  • Cirrex Systems v. InfraReDx: Lead counsel in patent litigation in the District of Massachusetts involving patented intravascular fiber optic catheter probes for detection and characterization of coronary artery plaques and other human tissues.°
  • Zohmann v. B. Braun: After a five-day jury trial, defeated a multi-million dollar claim for infringement of a patent directed to spinal anesthesia needles.°
  • Vital Signs v. County Line: Represented CPR manikin manufacturer in patent infringement suit. Settled following mediation.°
  • Conopco v. Carter-Wallace: Represented Conopco in the assertion of pregnancy test kit patents.°
  • Thermoscan v. Safe Design: Represented the patentee Thermoscan in a patent litigation in the S.D.Ca. involving digital ear thermometers. °
  • Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Miles Laboratories, Inc.: Represented Ortho in the assertion of flow cytometer (blood analyzer) patents against competitor through trial in the S.D.N.Y.°
  • Electrical Prefab Systems v. Thomas & Betts: Currently representing patentee EPS in the assertion of patents covering open-back electrical junction boxes for pre-fab applications.
  • SkillSurvey v. Checkster: Represented the patentee SkillSurvey in the assertion of a patent in the E.D.Pa. covering a system for reference-checking.
  • Furuno v. Navico: Defended Navico in a patent lawsuit involving integrated computer systems for marine navigation.
  • Electrical Prefab Systems v. Cooper Crouse Hinds/Eaton: Represented patentee EPS in the assertion of patents covering open-back electrical junction boxes for pre-fab applications.
  • Lead counsel defending major electronics and cellular phone manufacturer in multi-defendant patent infringement lawsuit in the W.D. of Tennessee involving use of personalized user information for targeted advertising.
  • In re Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same: Co-lead trial counsel for complainant Qimonda in ITC action involving semiconductor manufacturing patents. °
  • GTX v. Kofax: Counsel for patentee in action involving document scanning software for correction of skew and other errors. °
  • Ingersoll-Rand v. Wilden Pump: Secured summary judgment of invalidity of a patent covering electronic pump controls in the C.D. of California. °
  • TM Patents v. EMC, IBM and Hiachi: Asserted the Thinking Machines patent portfolio in a series of actions, including a two-week jury trial in the District of Massachusetts, resulting in the licensing of the market leaders in the large-scale enterprise computer data storage industry. °
  • Wilden v. Ingersoll-Rand: Represented a large industrial equipment manufacturer in a Markman hearing in the District of New Jersey. °
  • SCI v. Carborundum: Successfully defended Carborundum in the W.D.N.Y. against patent infringement claims involving silicon carbide for industrial applications. °
  • Asserted claims of theft of business method trade secrets relating to consumer billing technology. °
  • P&G v. Unilever: Represented Unilever in the “soap war” patent litigations in the E.D. of Virginia involving multiple patents covering detergents, shower gels, toothpaste and related technologies. °
  • FoldPak v. Temple-Inland: Represented the patentee FoldPak in the assertion of patents covering containers for ice cream in the E.D. of California. °
  • Powers v. Simplex et al.: Represented patentee Powers in the assertion of a patent covering wall fasteners multiple litigations in the E.D.N.Y. °
  • CertainTeed v. Atlas, Elk, etc.: Represented the patentee CertainTeed in the assertion of design patents covering roof shingles. °

°The above representations were handled by Mr. Pettus prior to his joining Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

  • Prior to becoming an attorney, Mr. Pettus held engineering positions at IBM (T.J. Watson Advanced Silicon Technologies Laboratory), Allied-Signal (Aerospace Division), and Ebasco/Ratheon (Nuclear Power Systems Division).

Recognition & Leadership

  • Listed, Managing IP Magazine's World IP Handbook and Survey, "IP Stars," 2013-2017
  • Listed, IAM magazine, "IAM Patent 1000," Litigation, 2012-2017
  • Listed, LMG Life Sciences, "Life Science Star," 2012-2014 and 2016-2017
  • Listed, Lawdragon 500 (inaugural edition), “New Stars”
  • Member, New York State Bar Association
  • Member, Conner Inn of Court (S.D.N.Y.)
  • Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Member, New York Intellectual Property Law Association 

Credentials

Education
  • J.D., Fordham University School of Law
  • B.S.M.E., cum laude, Manhattan College
Admissions
  • New York
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office