Intellectual Property

AV&H offers a wide range of legal services to clients in the vital field of intellectual property law.  AV&H provides counseling and litigation services regarding patents, trade secrets, trademarks and copyrights.  The firm represents clients seeking to effectively enforce intellectual property rights and to avoid and defend against charges of infringement and misappropriation.  Relying upon its extensive expertise in the antitrust field, the firm is in a unique position to evaluate issues at the intersection of the antitrust and intellectual property laws.  In the pharmaceutical industry, the firm counsels clients regarding the intricacies of the Hatch-Waxman Amendments and litigates exclusivity issues on their behalf.

News & Developments

• On August 25-26, Jonathan Harris Presents on Follow-on Biologics in San Francisco
• AV&H Attorney Named to Super Lawyers Corporate Counsel Edition July/August 2010
• On July 19-20, Jonathan Harris Presents on Follow-on Biologics in Boston
• On July 7, 2010, Jonathan Harris Presents on Inventorship and Prior Conception in New York City
• On June 3, 2010, Jonathan Harris Speaks on In Re Rosuvastatin Litigation
• Landmon Quoted by Pharmawire on the Possibility of a Cephalon Settlement
• Landmon Provides Insights on Generics Challenge of AstraZeneca's Crestor Patents to Pharmawire
• Landmon Discusses Teva's Launch of Generic Cozaar/Hyzaar With Market Exclusivity with The Pink Sheet
• Chad Landmon Discusses a Recent U.S. Court of Appeals Ruling with The Pink Sheet
• AV&H Wins Summary Judgment on Behalf of Mutual Pharmaceutical Company
• AV&H's Chad Landmon Discusses the Likelihood of the FTC Increasing Efforts to Obtain Passage of "Pay-For-Delay" Legislation with Drug Industry Daily
• AVH Partner Chad Landmon Discusses "pay-for-delay" Legislation in White House Health Care Plan
• Chad Landmon Discusses At-Risk Launches with The Pink Sheet Daily
• Chad Landmon Discusses Report on Generic Drug Availability with Generic Line
• Chad Landmon Discusses Astellas Court Loss with Generic Line
• Chad Landmon Discusses Cubist's Lawsuit Against Teva with Pharmawire
• Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider's Chad Landmon Speaks with Drug Industry Daily About the Drug Price Competition Act of 2009
• Chad Landmon Participates in Question and Answer Session with The National Law Journal on Follow-On Biologics
• Chad Landmon Discusses Court Decision Enjoining Teva from Launching Generic Osteoporosis Drug with Generic Line
• Chad Landmon Discusses Novartis’ Exjade® with Pharmawire
• Chad Landmon Discusses Court Rulings and Patent Law Reform with Thomson-Reuters
• Chad Landmon Discusses Teva's At-Risk Launch of Generic Pulmicort with The Pink Sheet
• Chad Landmon Discusses FDA's Letter Ruling Practice with The Pink Sheet
• CBI's Pharmaceutical Congress on Paragraph IV Disputes -- Chad Landmon and Michael Davitz Discuss Litigation Strategies, Generic Exclusivity Forfeiture and Recent Developments in Paragraph IV Disputes
• Chad Landmon Discusses Recent Declaratory Judgment Ruling with The Pink Sheet
• Fed. Cir. Reins in Equitable Conduct Doctrine
• Pfizer Buys More Time for Lipitor
• IP Playbook Can Save Companies From 'World of Hurt'
• Matt Becker participates in GC New England Rountable on Patent Litigation
• Law Article May Spark Patent Litigation Strategy
• The Best and Worst Patents for Generics to Fight
• Chad Landmon Discussess generic exclusivity forfeiture provisions with IP Law360
• Michael Keeley and Chad Landmon discuss FDA's recent 180-day exclusivity decisions with FDAnews
• FDAnews Audioconference -- Navigating the FDA's New 180-Day Generic Marketing Exclusivity Rulings
• Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider Boosts IP Practice
• Firm Gears Up For High Stakes Drug Lit
• Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP Expands Intellectual Property Practice
• Jim Doyle in Generics Line: "Eisai Could See At-Risk Launch of Generic Aricept ODT"
• AV&H Settles Lawsuit for Taro Pharmaceuticals
• Jim Veltrop Featured in IP360
• Michael Davitz quoted in IP Law & Business
• Cantor Colburn's Michael Cantor plugs Jim Veltrop in IP Law 360
• IP Litigation: Fran Morrison Comments on Qualcomm Legal Issues in Wall Street Journal and The Recorder
• AV&H Represents INEOS in U.S. Litigation
• AV&H Serving as Patent Counsel for ADHD and Pain Relief Medications
• Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP Continues to Expand Its Intellectual Property Group
• AV&H Represents URL/Mutual Companies in Launch of Guaifenesin Products
• AV&H Defends Fila in Marshall, Texas Patent Action
• Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider LLP Expands Its Intellectual Property Group
• AV&H Represents Sport Brands International/FILA in Connection with Launch of Various Products
• AV&H Represents R.R. Donnelly in Patent and Antitrust Litigation
• AV&H Represents Purepac Pharmaceutical Company in Metformin Launch
• AV&H Represents Stanley Works in Patent Litigation
• Stanley Defends Its Colors, Trade Turfs
• AV&H Defends Ryobi Technologies, Inc.

Articles & Treatises

• Authorized Generics: Consumer Friend or Foe?
• Raising Questions About Patent Deception
• FDA's Exclusivity Forfeiture Saga Continues
• Ask the Expert: Caraco's Impact on Declaratory Judgment Actions
• Ask the Expert: Impact of FDA's Exclusivity Forfeiture Rulings
• Raising the Bar of Patentability
• Here Comes The Tidal Wave of Generic DJ Actions
• FDA Removes Teeth From Exclusivity Forfeiture
• What is Patentable?
• Supreme Court Backhands Key Federal Circuit Test
• Fourth Circuit Rejects Another Authorized Generics Challenge
• On Demand: Focusing The Patent Scope
• FDA's "Holding On The Merits" Test
• Recent Court Rulings Indicate That Patent Rights May Trump the Antitrust Laws
• The "Narrowed Claim Conundrum" Resulting from Reissue and Reexamination Proceedings
• The Impact of a Brand Generic Launch on the Recovery of Patent Damages
• "Schering" Overruled: Risk of Settling Patent Suits Reduced?
• Invention is the Mother of Litigation
• Trade Secret Misappropriation A Federal Crime
• The New European Union Technology Transfer Block Exemption

Newsletters

• FTC Rules That Deception Regarding Patents During Standard Setting Process Violates Antitrust Laws
• Supreme Court Abandons Presumption of Market Power in Patent-Tying Cases