A. Antony Pfeffer has extensive experience representing plaintiffs and defendants in intellectual property litigation matters involving patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation, in state and federal courts as well as before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). He is also experienced in conducting patent office proceedings including inter partes reviews (IPR), reexaminations, and interferences. Mr. Pfeffer’s clients have included Toyota, GE Healthcare, Barnes & Noble, Teva, and Imclone Systems, among others.
An engineer by training, Mr. Pfeffer is adept at applying his scientific knowledge to develop litigation strategies for clients in a range of industries. He has litigated cases involving diverse technologies including medical imaging, diagnostics (both clinical and consumer use), expression of recombinant proteins, small-molecule pharmaceuticals, nutritional supplements, automotive, electronic devices, and computer software.
In addition to helping clients resolve disputes, Mr. Pfeffer handles transactional and licensing work that helps to facilitate his clients’ strategic growth. This includes drafting, negotiating, and counseling clients on commercial collaborations, joint research arrangements, and a diverse range of other transactions. In addition, he participates in patent prosecution, review, opinion, and clearance work in various technology areas. He is also a contributor to Kenyon’s IPR Blog, www.interpartesreviewblog.com, a blog dedicated to the latest developments in IPR proceedings and informs readers about key happenings related to the America Invents Act (AIA).
Mr. Pfeffer is a member of the firm’s diversity committee.
- Barnes & Noble in defending its NOOK eReader products from claims of patent infringement made by Microsoft in the ITC concerning various hardware and software patents.
- Barnes & Noble in defending its NOOK eReader products from claims of patent infringement made by Deep9 in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement, which was affirmed on appeal.
- Infosint SA against H. Lundbeck A/S and Forest Laboratories in a patent infringement lawsuit involving Infosint’s patent on a process for making racemic citalopram and escitalopram, the active ingredients in Forest’s and Lundbeck’s antidepressants Celexa® and Lexapro®. The jury found Infosint’s patent valid and infringed by Lundbeck and Forest, and awarded Infosint a $15 million reasonable royalty.
- GE Healthcare in various district court litigations and patent office proceedings related to ultrasound contrast agents.
- Enzo Diagnostics against Digene Corporation in a patent infringement lawsuit involving Digene’s diagnostic test for Human Papilloma Virus resulting in a favorable settlement for our client.
- Teva Pharmaceuticals and Savient Pharmaceuticals at the district court and appellate level against Novo Nordisk. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a judgment by the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware that the patent, which was related to recombinant human growth hormone, was unenforceable, and holding the sole asserted claim invalid.
- “Biologics Set to Take a Place in Generic Healthcare Treatment,” New York Law Journal, May 2011.
- “Changes to Stem Cell Patents in Europe and the United States,” IP Strategist, December 2007.