Mike Hogan is a principal in Offit Kurman’s Philadelphia office and a member of the firms’ Intellectual Property Group. He practices intellectual property litigation and concentrates on complex patent litigation, primarily in the pharmaceutical and life science areas. Mike’s litigation experience has spanned other technology areas including biotechnology, medical and mechanical devices, and consumer electronics. He has also litigated design patent, trade secret, and copyright cases. Mike’s practice incorporates non-litigation components, including freedom to operate, patent analysis and complex opinion work, all facilitated by bringing a litigation perspective to such patent scope, validity, and prosecution matters.
Prior to becoming a lawyer, Mike spent several years in the pharmaceutical industry as a medicinal chemist performing synthetic organic chemistry in drug discovery. Mike’s professional scientific background provides a unique, practical viewpoint which he brings to bear on behalf of his clients to achieve business-focused solutions.
RECENT REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE
- Assisted the trial team that invalidated the method of treatment patents covering the DDP-IV inhibitor Tradjenta®.
- Member of the trial team that achieved a favorable settlement for generic pharmaceutical manufacturer in the Hatch-Waxman litigation involving Kyprolis®, a treatment for multiple myeloma.
- Member of the trial team that achieved a favorable settlement for generic pharmaceutical manufacturer in the Hatch-Waxman litigation involving the anti-platelet drug Brilinta®.
- Variable Lighting LLC v. Kmart Corporation, et al., Case No.: 15-cv-00426 (D. Del.) | Achieved favorable settlement and license allowing his client to market their accused consumer electronic product.
- Northwest Home Designing, Inc. v. Benjamin Ryan Communities LLC, et al., Case No.: 14-cv-05808 (W.D. Wash.) | Achieved partial summary judgment against majority of plaintiff’s architectural copyright infringement claims and facilitating settlement.
- BSN Sports, LLC v. Bensussen Deutsch & Associates, Inc., Case No.: 15-cv-00969 (N.D. Tex.) | Achieved favorable settlement and license regarding claims of patent infringement against consumer sports products.
- Lisa Duer v. Bensussen Deutsch & Associates LLC, et al., Case No.: 14-cv-01589 (N.D. Ga.) | Achieved favorable settlement of a lawsuit involving patent, trademark, trade dress and copyright infringement allegations concerning a medical device.
- VSSI, Inc. v. Olympic Veterinary Corp., Case No.: 6:14-cv-03479 (W.D. Mo.) | Secured voluntary dismissal with prejudice and favorable settlement of patent infringement claims against veterinary medical device manufacturer.
- Hospira, Inc. et al. v. Sylvia Matthews Burwell, et al., Case No.: 8:14-cv-02662 (D. Md.), No. 14-1920 (4th Cir.) | Part of litigation team for intervenor Par Sterile Products LLC in case brought by Hospira in the District of Maryland against U.S. Food & Drug Administration to rescind approval for generic Precedex® (dexmedetomidine) products. Par obtained summary judgment allowing it to market its product and later prevailed on appeal to the Fourth Circuit, after which the case settled favorably.
AWARDS AND PRESENTATIONS
- Barrister’s Award for Excellence in Trial Advocacy, James E. Beasley School of Law, Temple University
- Eli Lilly & Company Scholarship for Undergraduate Synthetic Organic Chemistry Summer Research
- Guest Lecturer: “P545 Advanced Patent Law” with Prof. Toshiko Takenaka - focusing on utility, written description, and enablement; University of Washington School of Law – Feb. 1, 2016
- Panel Moderator: “Claim Construction Now and Other Case Law Updates,” BIO IPCC Conference - Spring 2015, St. Louis, MO
- Hogan, M., “Reasons to Limit Inventor Testimony in Hatch-Waxman Cases,” IP Law 360, Feb. 15, 2019, https://www.law360.com/articles/1125290/reasons-to-limit-inventor-testimony-in-hatch-waxman-cases
- Abedi, S., Hogan, M., Lindberg, E., “Is Trademark Registration Process No Longer Streamlined Post-B&B Hardware: Tall Tales or Reality?” BNA’s Patent, Trademark, & Copyright Journal.® 91:254, 2015
- Hogan, M., Hillyer, G., “Toil and Trouble for Patent Trolls, Whoever They Are,” The Legal Intelligencer, Intellectual Property Special Section, October 2013.
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…
The Federal Circuit addressed the issue of whether subjecting a pre-American Invents Act (“AIA”) patent to inter partes review (“IPR”)…