Lynn M. Terrebonne focuses her practice on complex patent litigation. She is an experienced first chair trial attorney and leads Offit Kurman’s Hatch-Waxman Litigation Team. Lynn has led Hatch-Waxman teams in numerous cases many of which settled on favorable terms prior to trial. She also represents clients in litigations involving design patents, trademark and copyright infringement and the theft of trade secrets. Lynn has a unique combination of experience in both intellectual property and science. She spent eleven years carrying out inter-disciplinary research at the University of Alabama at Birmingham (UAB) covering the fields of platelet physiology, protein chemistry, immunochemistry and enzymology. Additionally, while at UAB she participated in the working group that discovered the gene responsible for Cystic Fibrosis.
- Led the trial team that invalidated the method of treatment patents covering the DDP-IV inhibitor Tradjenta®.
- Obtained a favorable settlement for her generic pharmaceutical client in the Hatch-Waxman litigation involving Kyprolis® a treatment for multiple myeloma.
- Obtained a favorable settlement for her generic pharmaceutical client in the Hatch-Waxman litigation involving the anti-platelet drug Brilinta®.
- Successfully resolved the Hatch-Waxman litigation regarding the polymorphic form of Viibry® in favor of her generic pharmaceutical client.
- Represented the branded pharmaceutical manufacturer in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving the sleep aid Lunesta®.
- Represented the branded pharmaceutical manufacturer in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving Opana® ER.
- Represented Apotex, Inc. in the Hatch-Waxman litigation involving the anti-platelet agent Plavix®.
- Successfully represented a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving Cardizem® CD.
- Represented a generic pharmaceutical manufacturer in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving omeprazole.
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
- American Conference Institutes Paragraph IV Dispute Master Symposium, September 19, 2016.
- Rising Star, Pennsylvania Super Lawyer 2006.
What options exists for a generic manufacturer, after a finding of infringement by the District Court, to then show non-infringement of an amended Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”)?
We here continue our discussion of the antitrust fallout after settlement of the recent In re Novartis & Par Antitrust Litigation case, C.A. 18-cv-4361 (AKA), 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 138133, *5 (Aug. 15, 2019). To recap, the case arose from an agreement entered between...
The Southern District of New York’s ruling in In re Novartis & Par Antitrust Litigation provides insight into how to limit the number of claims asserted in a pay for delay antitrust suit; and, more importantly, illustrates...View All