Elizabeth Holland

Elizabeth Holland

Elizabeth Holland is an experienced trial lawyer focusing exclusively on patent infringement and related litigation. She has litigated patents in many different technical areas and industries, including pharmaceutical, chemical, medical device and consumer products. Ms. Holland has particular expertise in Hatch-Waxman litigation, having tried numerous cases in this area on behalf of both branded and generic drug companies.

Ms. Holland came to Kenyon from a large general-practice firm, where she litigated a wide variety of cases, including patent infringement, securities, real
estate and contract matters.

Ms. Holland is the Chair of the firm’s Diversity Committee and a member of the firm’s Management Committee. Her leadership role at the firm has helped establish Kenyon as one of the most diverse firms in the nation, as recognized by ALM, Managing Intellectual Property and DiversityBusiness.com.

Representative Matters

• Lead counsel for plaintiffs Teva Pharmaceuticals and Yeda Research and Development in Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA v. Sandoz Inc., consolidated Hatch-Waxman litigations pending in the Southern District of New York concerning proposed generic equivalents to Teva's blockbuster multiple sclerosis drug Copaxone®. Bench trials were held in July and September 2011 and a decision is pending.
• Lead counsel for defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals in Warner-Lambert Company, et al v. Purepac Pharmaceutical, et al., a patent infringement action concerning Teva’s AB-rated generic equivalent to Pfizer’s Neurontin®. Obtained a favorable settlement two weeks into a scheduled seven-week jury trial in the District of New Jersey.
• Lead counsel for defendants Enzymotec Ltd., Azantis Inc. and Mercola in Neptune Technologies v. Enzymotec Ltd., a patent infringement action pending in the District of Delaware concerning krill oil products.
• Lead counsel for defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals in Warner Chilcott Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, a Hatch-Waxman litigation pending in the District of New Jersey concerning the drug risedronate.
• Lead counsel for defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals in Otsuka v. Apotex, a Hatch-Waxman litigation concerning the drug aripiprazole, currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
• Lead counsel for defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals in Pfizer v. Teva Pharmaceuticals, a Hatch-Waxman litigation concerning Teva’s AB-rated equivalent to Zithromax®. Obtained a favorable settlement while summary judgment motions were pending.
• Trial and appellate counsel for Sicor Pharmaceuticals in Eli Lilly and Co. v. Sicor Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Hatch-Waxman litigation in the Southern District of Indiana concerning Sicor’s generic equivalent to Eli Lilly's cancer drug Gemzar®. Eli Lilly’s patent was found to be invalid after trial, and the decision was affirmed on appeal.
• Trial counsel for defendant and counter-claimant GE Healthcare in Bracco Diagnostics Inc. v. Amersham Health Inc., a false advertising case concerning x-ray contrast agents. District court found in favor of GE Healthcare after trial on its false advertising counterclaim.
• Counsel for defendants Boston Scientific Corporation and Medinol Ltd. in Medtronic Vascular v. Boston Scientific, et al., a patent infringement suit in the District of Delaware concerning coronary stents. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement, which was affirmed on appeal.
• Trial and appellate counsel for defendant Teva Pharmaceuticals in SmithKline Beecham Corporation v. Copley Pharmaceutical, Inc., a Hatch-Waxman litigation in the District of Massachusetts concerning Teva’s AB-rated generic equivalent to Relafen®. SmithKline Beecham’s patent was found to be to be invalid and unenforceable after trial, and the decision was affirmed on appeal.
• Counsel for defendants American Home Products and Takeda Chemical Industries in Evans Medical v. American Cyanamid, a patent infringement litigation in the Southern District of New York concerning pertussis vaccines. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement, which was affirmed on appeal.