Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider

Connecticut

Review

Overview

 

 

Dispute resolution

With offices in New York, Washington, DC, Hartford, Connecticut and San Francisco, Axinn maintains a special focus on litigation, particularly in the antitrust and intellectual property spaces. One appreciative client addresses the firm as “excellent, very accessible, responsive and reasonably priced.” This client goes on to note that “Axinn is also more diverse than most IP firms. ‘More diverse’ meaning not all white men and women.”
     In the firm’s Hartford office, Matthew Becker represented Alvogen Pine Brook in patent infringement litigation brought by plaintiffs concerning Alvogen’s ANDA submitted to FDA for approval of its Budesonide Extended-Release Tablets, which was marketed by Santarus and now plaintiff Valeant Pharmaceuticals under the name UCERIS, a corticosteroid medicine used to treat mild to moderate ulcerative colitis. In May 2017, a trial was held in Wilmington, Delaware. At the close of plaintiffs’ case-in-chief, Becker moved for judgment of non-infringement, which was granted, ending the case with a judgment in Alvogen’s favor in November 2017. The plaintiffs appealed that judgment. Oral arguments in the appeal were held in January 2019, and the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision that same month. The case was dismissed pursuant to a settlement on favorable terms in August 2019. Becker also, along with fellow Hartford partners Chad Landmon and Ted Mathias, represented this same client in a case regarding patents related to Pernix hydrocodone extended-release capsules, Zohydro. This case went to appeal at the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the lower court’s decision in December 2019. Landmon represented Zydus Pharmaceuticals and Cadila Healthcare in a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action brought by Millennium Pharmaceuticals. The litigation involved the drug bortezomib, which is marketed under the Velcade. The patent at issue had previously been found valid by the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, but Axinn developed a unique obviousness argument and aggressively litigated the case, leading to a favorable settlement on the eve of trial.