Robert Cerwinski is a seasoned and highly effective intellectual property litigator. For more than a decade, he has successfully represented both plaintiffs and defendants in patent and trade secret litigation before federal and state courts across the country. His primary focus is on litigation involving pharmaceutical and biological products.

Mr. Cerwinski brings to his practice an exceptional combination of patent law expertise and technical proficiency in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology fields. Recently, he helped his client Teva Pharmaceuticals, the world’s leading maker of generic drugs, favorably resolve a long-running ANDA litigation against Pfizer concerning Teva’s AB-rated generic equivalent to Pfizer’s Neurontin® product. The settlement ending this case was reached just two weeks into a jury trial that had been scheduled to last seven weeks.

Mr. Cerwinski holds a graduate degree in cellular and molecular biology. Before pursuing a career in law, Mr. Cerwinski worked for a major Japanese pharmaceutical company in Tokyo assisting with the prosecution of patents for biotechnology products.

representative matters
  • Purdue Pharma v. Teva Pharmaceuticals (S.D.N.Y.) – Counsel for Teva in Hatch-Waxman litigation concerning Teva’s generic equivalent to OxyContin®, an opioid pain medication. A favorable settlement was obtained prior to trial.
  • Abbott Laboratories v. Teva Pharmaceuticals (N.D. Ill.) – Counsel for Teva in a patent infringement action concerning Teva’s generic equivalent to Biaxin®, an antibiotic. A favorable settlement was obtained while summary judgment motion was pending.
  • Abbott Laboratories v. Teva Pharmaceuticals (N.D. Ill.) – Counsel for Teva in patent infringement action concerning Teva’s generic equivalent to Biaxin XL®, an antibiotic. A favorable settlement was obtained after the Federal Circuit vacated a preliminary injunction.
  • Teva Pharmaceuticals v. GlaxoSmithKline (E.D. Va.) – Counsel for Teva in a patent infringement action concerning Teva’s generic equivalent to Augmentin®, an antibiotic. Seven patents were invalidated in two summary judgment motions and a bench trial.
  • Glaxo Wellcome v. Teva Pharmaceuticals (D. DEL.) – Counsel for Teva in a patent infringement action involving Teva’s equivalent to Wellbutrin®, an antidepressant. A favorable settlement was obtained.
  • Teva Pharmaceuticals v. Pfizer (S.D.N.Y.) – Counsel for Teva in Hatch-Waxman litigation concerning Teva’s equivalent to Zithromax®, an antibiotic. A favorable settlement was obtained while summary judgment motions were pending.
  • Bradley Pharmaceuticals v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical (D.N.J.) – Counsel for Breckenridge in a patent infringement action involving Breckenridge’s sulfatol acne medication. A favorable settlement was obtained.
  • Revlon v. Estée Lauder (S.D.N.Y.) – Counsel for Estée Lauder in a patent infringement litigation concerning cosmetic emulsions. A favorable settlement was obtained.
  • Hoechst Marion Roussel v. Faulding (D.N.J.) – Counsel for Faulding in patent infringement litigation concerning Cardizem CD®, a hypertension medication. A favorable settlement was obtained.
  • Evans Medical v. American Cyanamid (S.D.N.Y.) – Counsel for American Home Products and Takeda Chemical Industries in a patent infringement litigation concerning acellular pertussis vaccines. Summary judgment of non-infringement was obtained.
bar and court admissions
  • New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
professional organizations

New York State Bar Association, Committee on Patents of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, American Intellectual Property Law Association, New York Intellectual Property Law Association