Huiya Wu has practiced intellectual property law for over a decade and her practice focuses on patent and related litigation. She has successfully represented both plaintiffs and defendants before numerous federal district courts, as well as in state court. She has also practiced before the International Trade Commission (ITC). Ms. Wu has handled all phases of U.S. patent litigation, including pre-trial investigation, fact and expert discovery, motion practice, trial, and appellate practice. She has also coordinated activities on large multi-defendant litigations and supported foreign patent litigation and related proceedings.
Ms. Wu represents clients in a wide range of business fields, has litigated patents in a variety of technologies, including pharmaceuticals, fungicides, analytical devices, medical devices, automotive parts, roofing products, and internet business methods, and has particular expertise in generic drug “ANDA” litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
Ms. Wu is fluent in Mandarin and is a member of the firm’s Diversity Committee. Ms. Wu has been actively involved in pro bono work, and is a recipient of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York’s Thurgood Marshall Award. She has also spoken at numerous legal seminars and has appeared on panel presentations sponsored by various organizations; most recently, she spoke at MCCA's 12th Annual Creating Pathways to Diversity Conference.
- Tris Pharma, as second-chair counsel, in a patent infringement and trade secret case in which the court granted Tris Pharma’s motion for summary judgment of no infringement and dismissed with prejudice plaintiffs’ remaining claims. Reckitt Benckiser et al. v. Tris Pharma et al. (D.N.J.)
- Glenmark Pharmaceuticals, as second-chair counsel, in a patent infringement case involving a generic drug product for treating hypertension. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH et al. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals USA (D.N.J.)
- Tris Pharma, as second-chair counsel, at a hearing in a pending trade secret case in which the court denied UCB’s motion for a preliminary injunction and subsequently granted summary judgment in favor of Tris Pharma on UCB’s trade secret claims. UCB Manufacturing v. Tris Pharma et al. (New Jersey state court)
- Teva, as second-chair counsel, in a multi-defendant patent infringement case on a generic drug product for treating gastroesophageal reflux disease. Case settled. AstraZeneca AB et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals et al. (D.N.J.)
- Teva, as co-lead counsel, in a multi-defendant patent infringement case on a generic drug product for treating attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. Case settled. Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals et al. (D.N.J.)
- Robert Bosch at trial in a patent infringement case related to windshield wipers. Jury found that Bosch’s patent was valid and infringed. Robert Bosch LLC v. Pylon Manufacturing Corp. (D. Del.)
- Applied Interact in a patent infringement case related to internet business methods, which settled after a favorable claim construction ruling. Applied Interact, LLC v. Continental Airlines et al. (E.D. Va.)
- ISP in a patent infringement case on fungicides, which settled. Troy Technology Corp. v. ISP Technologies (D.N.J.)
- GAF in a patent infringement case related to roofing products, which settled. CertainTeed Corporation v. Building Materials Corporation of America d/b/a G.A.F. Materials Corp. (E.D. Pa.)
- Boston Scientific at trial and on appeal in a patent infringement case related to stents, which settled. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp. et al. (D. Del.)
- Applera in a patent infringement case related to mass spectrometers and DNA analyzers, which settled. Applera Corp. et al. v. Thermo Electron Corp. (D. Del.)
- Teva at trial and on appeal in a patent infringement case related to a generic drug product for treating premenstrual dysphoric disorder. Eli Lilly and Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals (S.D. Ind.)
- Applied Biosystems at trial and on appeal in a patent infringement case related to mass spectrometers. The Federal Circuit affirmed jury verdict of $47.5 million, the fourth largest jury verdict in an intellectual property case that year. Applied Biosystems et al. v. Micromass UK Ltd. et al. (D. Del.)