John W. Bateman has over 20 years of experience litigating intellectual property disputes, including serving as lead counsel for Kenyon’s clients both at trial and on appeal. He has worked on a wide variety of matters, including ones concerning patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets, and has practiced before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, numerous federal district courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. He has been recognized by a number of legal ranking publications, including Washington, DC Super Lawyers (2014) and The Legal 500 United States (2012).
In recent years, Mr. Bateman’s litigation practice has focused on matters involving pharmaceutical products, medical devices and biotechnology, with a particular emphasis on representing generic companies in actions brought under the Hatch-Waxman Act. However, he has worked on matters involving a wide range of products, including electrical connectors, gasoline pumps, and drapery hooks.
Mr. Bateman’s practice also involves rendering opinions on infringement and validity issues regarding generic pharmaceutical products. His years of experience with Hatch-Waxman cases help him develop arguments that are more likely to prevail in litigation. In addition, he is a United States contributing author for Pharmaceutical, Biotechnology, and Chemical Inventions: World Protection and Exploitation, which was published by Oxford University Press in February 2011.
Mr. Bateman also has extensive knowledge regarding section 337 investigations at the International Trade Commission. He has litigated a number of such cases, has served on the Executive Committee of the ITC Trial Lawyers Association, and is a co-author of Unfair Competition and the ITC, a handbook on section 337 practices and procedures.
- Served as lead counsel in Hatch-Waxman case involving Watson’s and Andrx’s generic versions of OxyContin® drug product that settled favorably in 2013. Purdue Pharma v. Watson Laboratories et al. (S.D.N.Y.)
- Examined witnesses at 2011 trial in a Hatch-Waxman case involving Watson’s generic version of Sanctura XR® drug product in which district court held in 2012 that patents-in-suit were invalid and Federal Circuit affirmed. Allergan v. Watson Laboratories (D. Del.)
- Served as lead counsel in case in which the district court held in 2009 that client Photocure was entitled to a Hatch-Waxman term extension on its patent covering its Metvixia® drug product. The Federal Circuit affirmed in 2010. Photocure ASA v. Kappos (E.D. Va. and Fed. Cir.)
- Served as lead counsel in case involving generic version of Seasonale® oral contraceptive product made by client Watson, that settled favorably in 2010. Duramed Pharmaceuticals et al. v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals (D. Del. and Fed. Cir.)
- Served as lead counsel in a case in which district court issued claim construction ruling in 2008 that established that client Best Vascular’s brachytherapy device did not infringe Calmedica’s patent, which led directly to Calmedica dropping the case. Calmedica v. Best Vascular (N.D. Ga.)
- Served as second chair in Hatch-Waxman case involving generic version of Norvasc® drug product made by client Synthon, in which Federal Circuit held in 2007 that Pfizer’s patent was invalid. Pfizer v. Synthon Laboratories (M.D.N.C.)
- Served as lead counsel in Hatch-Waxman case involving generic version of Provigil drug product made by Kenyon’s client Teva that settled favorably in 2005. Cephalon v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA (D.N.J.)
- Served as second chair at trial, in which jury found that Hon Hai was liable for infringement of client FCI’s patents involving electrical connectors, and awarded FCI about $8 million in damages, leading directly to a favorable settlement. FCI USA v. Hon Hai Precision (N.D. Cal.)
- Gave opening statement and closing argument and examined witnesses at trial. Also presented oral argument on appeal, in a case involving human growth hormone product made by clients BTG and Teva, in which district court held that Novo’s patent was invalid and unenforceable; Federal Circuit affirmed. Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals v. Bio-Technology General Corp. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA (D. Del. and Fed. Cir.)
- Assisted at trial and on appeal in case in which Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC's decision that Kenyon’s clients, four American semiconductor companies, could continue to import integrated circuits that TI had alleged infringed its patent. Texas Instruments v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (ITC and Fed. Cir.)