Merri Moken’s practice focuses on patent litigation pertaining to the chemical, pharmaceutical, mechanical and electrical arts. She has practiced before federal district and appellate courts, and the International Trade Commission. Ms. Moken has represented both plaintiffs and defendants with respect to patent infringement, invalidity, and unenforceability, as well as trade secret misappropriation and contract-related matters. Ms. Moken also represents internationally based clients, and she has served as counsel for both domestic and foreign proceedings. Her practice also includes client counseling, due diligence, licensing, trade secrets, unfair competition, dispute resolution, opinion work and management of prosecution matters.
Ms. Moken has served as lead counsel in several patent infringement litigations, and she has successfully argued claim constructions and numerous motions, including pretrial motions, at the district court level. Ms. Moken’s litigation practice has been highly successful due to her facility with all types of technology, her thoughtful, consider-all-the-angles approach, and her command of both the deposition room and the courtroom. Indeed, Ms. Moken’s abilities have been recognized by her colleagues and clients, and earned her repeated selection as a New York Metro Super Lawyers “Rising Star” and as one of the Top Women Super Lawyers in the New York Metro area (2014 and 2015).
Her extensive experience in ANDA litigation has been particularly advantageous for her pharmaceutical clients. She has worked on behalf of both generic and brand-name companies, and has both enforced and defended against assertion of patent rights with respect to an even wider array of scientific disciplines. She has also represented and counseled clients in the medical device arena including with respect to drug-eluting stents and revolutionary hip replacement technology.
Ms. Moken’s talents are not limited to practice in the life sciences and chemical arena, but similarly extend to engineering technologies including in the communication device, automotive, digital surveillance, internet and cable industries.
Prior to joining Kenyon, during the period of 1993 to 1997, Ms. Moken performed unique research, discovering that disinfectants induce the expression of a gene named mar, conferring multiple antibiotic resistance in bacteria. As an undergraduate, her scientific research and thesis focused on metal-assisted assembly of multi-helix protein bundles. Ms. Moken’s years of independent research and her work experience at various pharmaceutical companies provide her with a unique perspective, and not only an understanding of the underlying technologies, but also unique insight into managing both the business and intellectual property goals of her clients, and into providing creative solutions to help her clients reach those goals.
- Akzo Nobel Coatings Inc. v. Dow Chemical Company (Fed. Cir.) Representing Akzo Nobel Coatings Inc. in an interlocutory appeal.
- Akzo Nobel Coatings Inc. v. Dow Chemical Company (D.Del.) - Representing Akzo Nobel Coatings Inc. in a patent infringement litigation relating to extrusion technology.
- A.L.M Holding Co. et al. v. Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry LLC (D.Del.) - Representing Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry LLC in a patent infringement litigation relating to asphalt technology.
- Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry LLC v. Huntsman Petrochemical (S.D.Ohio) - Represented Akzo Nobel Surface Chemistry with regard to trade secret misappropriation, misappropriation of confidential information and breach of contract claims.
- C-Cation Technologies, LLC v. Time Warner Cable et al. (E.D. Tex) - Representing C-Cation Tech in a patent infringement suit concerning C-Cation Tech’s patent directed to dynamic channel management.
- C-Cation Technologies, LLC v. Comcast Corporation et al. (E.D. Tex.) - Represented C-Cation Tech in a patent infringement suit concerning C-Cation Tech’s patent directed to dynamic channel management, and obtained favorable settlement.
- Comcast Corporation et al. v. C-cation, Inc. et al. (S.D.N.Y.) - Represented C-cation Inc. concerning contract claims and obtained favorable settlement.
- Pfizer Inc., Pharmacia Corp. Pharmacia & Upjohn Co., Upjohn LLC, Pharmacia & Upjohn Co. LLC, C.P. Pharmaceuticals Int’l., C.V. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (D. Del.) – Lead Counsel – Represented Teva concerning its generic equivalent of the antibiotic Zyvox®. Obtained a highly favorable settlement immediately prior to trial.
- Bristol-Myers Squibb Company, Novartis Corp. and Novartis Pharma AG v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D. Del.) - Represented Teva concerning its generic equivalent of the HIV protease-inhibitor, Reyataz®. Obtained a highly favorable settlement prior to completion of expert discovery.
- Cephalon, Inc. and Cephalon France v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D. Del.) – Lead Counsel - Represented Teva concerning its generic equivalent of the wakefulness-promoter Nuvigil®. The case was dismissed against Teva.
- Aventis v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (D.N.J.) - Represented Impax concerning its generic equivalent of the antihistamine/decongestant combination Allegra-D®, with respect to several formulation patents. The parties settled this litigation in 2011.
- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. et al. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals. Inc. and Torrent Pharma Inc. (D. Del.) and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. et al. v. Pliva, Inc. (D.N.J.) - Represented Teva against numerous generic pharmaceutical companies in these litigations enforcing Teva’s patents to various polymorphic forms of sertraline hydrochloride and protecting its period of exclusivity for its generic equivalent of Pfizer’s then multi-billion dollar antidepressant, Zoloft®. Obtained favorable settlements prior to trial.
- Aventis and Albany Molecular Research, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Amino Chemicals (D.N.J.) - Represented Teva concerning its generic equivalent of Aventis’s then multi-billion dollar antihistamine, Allegra®, in a series of litigations brought by Sanofi-Aventis. At the start of 2006, the Court denied Aventis’s motion for a preliminary injunction and allowed Teva to remain on the market with its generic equivalent of Allegra®. The parties settled these litigations in 2008.
- Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (D. Del.) and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. Pfizer Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) - Represented Teva concerning its generic equivalent of Pfizer’s antibiotic Zithromax® and the sesquihydrate pseudomorph of azithromycin. Obtained favorable settlement prior to trial.
- Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Pfizer Inc. (S.D.N.Y.) - Represented Teva concerning its generic equivalent of Pfizer’s antibiotic Zithromax®, and pseudomorphs of azithromycin. Obtained highly favorable settlement prior to trial.
- Medimmune Oncology, Inc. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd. (D. Md.) - Represented third-party, Mayne Pharma (USA) Inc., in this litigation.
- Shire Laboratories Inc. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (D. Del.) - Represented Impax in this patent infringement suit concerning modified release formulations of the ADHD medication, Adderall®. The parties agreed on a settlement.
- In the Matter of Certain Video Analytics Software, Systems, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same (ITC) - Represented Bosch in this Investigation before the International Trade Commission concerning non-infringement and invalidity of multiple ObjectVideo patents pertaining to video analytics and computer vision. Obtained favorable settlement prior to issuance of Initial Determination.
- Infosint S.A. v. H. Lundbeck A/S et al. (S.D.N.Y.) – Represented Infosint in this patent infringement suit and jury trial, asserting Infosint’s process patent for the manufacture of the active ingredients in Lundbeck’s antidepressants Celexa® and Lexapro®.
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. SICOR Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. (S.D. Ind.) - Represented SICOR concerning its generic equivalent of the cancer drug Gemzar®. Eli Lilly’s patent was found to be invalid after trial, and the decision was affirmed on appeal.
- Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Sanofi-Aventis SA v. Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (District Court of Tel Aviv) - Served as United States counsel for Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. concerning its generic version of the antihistamine Allegra®; focused on expert discovery and preparation for trial and assisted during trial in Tel-Aviv, Israel. The parties reached a settlement after trial.
- Li (Pfizer) v. Singer (Teva) - Patent Interference – Represented Teva in this interference concerning polymorphs of azithromycin.
- “Overview of Main IPRs” “United States Main IPRs Q&A,” PLC Cross-border IP in Business Transactions Handbook, 2011 – 2012.
- “Overview of Main IPRs” “United States Main IPRs Q&A,” PLC Cross-border IP in Business Transactions Handbook, 2010 – 2011
- “Appendix to Chapter 12,” Frontiers in Antimicrobial Resistance: a Tribute to Stuart B. Levy, 2005.
- “Federal Circuit Finds an Absence of Utility in DNA Sequences, ESTs: Encumbrance of Patentability Holds Ramifications for Agricultural Industry,” IP Strategist, Oct. 2005.
- “Fallwell.com Transfer Is Answer to Reverend’s Prayers,” World Trademark Law Report, Nov. 9, 2004.
- “Fake Pharmaceuticals: How They and Relevant Legislation or Lack Thereof Contribute to Consistently High and Increasing Drug Prices,” American Journal of Law and Medicine, vol. 29, no. 4, 2003.
- “Selection of Multiple Antibiotic Resistant (mar) Mutants of Escherichia coli by Using the Disinfectant Pine Oil: Roles of mar and acrAB loci,” Antimicrobial Agents of Chemotherapy, Dec. 1997.