Scott K. Reed

Reed Scott
Scott Reed is co-chair of the IP Litigation Practice Group. Scott has served as lead trial counsel in complex patent litigations involving pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, chemicals, and electronic and computer technologies, in bench and jury trials in federal and state court and in contested proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Before joining Venable, Scott spent his entire career at Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto, where he chaired the Litigation Practice Group and served as a member of the Management Committee.


Representative Matters

  • Alkermes in Luye Pharma v. Alkermes (injectable suspensions, including a long-acting injection of risperidone used to treat schizophrenia)
  • Allergan in Allergan v. Aurobindo, Wilshire and Sometset (ophthalmic formulations of alcaftadine for once-daily treatment of allergic conjunctivitis)
  • Astellas in Astellas v. Actavis, Sandoz, Sawai, Lupin, Zydus, Prinston, Aurobindo, Apotex and Windlas (compound to treat overactive bladder)
  • Bausch & Lomb in Bausch & Lomb v. Alcon and Bausch & Lomb v. Allergan (contact lens care products containing proteolytic enzymes and antimicrobial agents); Visx v. Bausch & Lomb (laser eye surgery); Allergan v. Bausch & Lomb (intraocular lenses); Allergan v. Bausch & Lomb (anti-glaucoma pharmaceuticals); Bausch & Lomb v. GNC, Bausch & Lomb v. Leiner, Bausch & Lomb v. Alcon, Bausch & Lomb v. Rexall, and Bausch & Lomb v. Vitamin Health (nutritional supplement to treat macular degeneration)
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb in Regents of the University of Michigan and Repligen Corporation v. Bristol-Myers Squibb (fusion protein regulation of the immune system); Housey Pharmaceuticals v. Bristol-Myers Squibb (cell-based biotechnology assays); Zymogenetics v. Bristol-Myers Squibb (fusion proteins); and Regents of the University of Michigan and Repligen Corporation v. Bristol-Myers (rheumatoid arthritis pharmaceuticals)
  • Canon in Intellectual Ventures v. Canon (graphical user interface and image sensor technology); Honeywell v. Canon (autofocus camera technology); and Gross v. Canon (microprocessor technology and optical devices)
  • DuPont in Schneider v. DuPont and DuPont v. Cordis (polymeric balloon angioplasty materials)
  • Emory University in Emory University v. Glaxo Wellcome (anti-hepatitis pharmaceuticals) and Emory University v. Glaxo Wellcome and BioChem Pharma (anti-AIDS pharmaceuticals)
  • Genzyme in Bonecare and Genzyme v. Pentech, Eagle, Sandoz, Anchen, and Roxane (kidney disease pharmaceuticals); Bonecare and Genzyme v. Impax, Lupin, Endo, Teva, Watson, and Sandoz (kidney disease pharmaceuticals); Daiichi Sankyo and Genzyme v. Impax and Lupin (anti-cholesterol pharmaceuticals)
  • GlaxoSmithKline in GlaxoSmithKline v. Barr (prostate pharmaceuticals) Pozen v. Par (migraine pharmaceuticals)
  • IBM in Berkeley v. IBM (personal computers) and Valutron v. IBM (point-of-sale devices)
  • Mitsui in 3M v. Mitsui (adhesive technology)
  • Novartis in Novartis v. Abbott (organ transplant cyclosporin pharmaceuticals)
  • Pfizer in Pfizer v. Barr (estrogen contraceptive pharmaceuticals) and Pfizer v. Barr (hormone replacement therapy pharmaceuticals)
  • Quebec Metal Powders in Hoeganaes v. Quebec Metal Powders (powder metallurgy)
  • Regeneron in Regeneron v. Genentech (macular degeneration pharmaceuticals)
  • Sanofi-Aventis in Genentech v. Sanofi and Regeneron (anti-cancer pharmaceuticals)
  • UCB in UCB v. Mylan, UCB v. Dr. Reddy’s, UCB v. Ivax, UCB v. Sandoz, and UCB v. Cobalt (epilepsy pharmaceuticals); UCB v. KV, UCB v. Mallinckrodt, and UCB v. Teva (attention deficit disorder pharmaceuticals)
  • Union Carbide in BP v. Union Carbide (polyethylene processing technology)
  • Valeant in Valeant v. Actavis (compound to treat irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea)

Representative Clients

  • Alkermes
  • Allergan
  • Alnylam
  • Astellas Pharma
  • Bausch & Lomb
  • Canon
  • Genzyme
  • Regeneron
  • Sanofi
  • Valeant



  • J.D. Franklin Pierce Law Center 1987
    • Editorial Board (IDEA) Journal of Law and Technology
  • B.S. Chemistry and Economics Ursinus College 1984

Bar Admissions

  • New York
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Court Admissions

  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York


Scott is known as a "consummate trial lawyer who discerns how to persuade the judge and jurors" and who produces "consistently excellent results" (IAM 1000: The World's Leading Patent Practitioners, 2012). He is a "versatile operator with extensive first-chair experience" (IAM 1000: The World's Leading Patent Practitioners, 2013) and brings "a lot of sage advice and experience" (Legal 500, 2012) as well as "his 'enthusiasm' to cases, leading a 'professional' team" (Legal 500, 2008).

  • Recipient of the Corporate Intl Magazine Global Award: IP Litigation Attorney of the Year in New York, 2017
  • Recognized in Best Lawyers in America, Litigation – Patent, 2016 - 2019
  • Named an IP Star, Managing Intellectual Property, 2014 - 2018
  • Listed in IAM Patent 1000, 2012 - 2018
  • Listed in PLC Which Lawyer for IP: patent litigation, 2012
  • Listed in IAM 250: The World’s Leading Patent Litigators, 2011
  • Recognized in Legal 500 for Patent litigation: full coverage, 2007 - 2010 and 2012 - 2013 
  • Listed in Legal Media Group Guide to the World’s Leading Patent Law Practitioners 2007 - 2010
  • Recognized by LMG Life Sciences, 2012 - 2018
  • Named a Leading Attorney for New York: Patent Litigation in Leaders League, 2012, 2014, 2015; and in Leaders League, USA Nationwide: Patent Litigation, 2014, 2015
  • Recognized in Super Lawyers: New York Metro Edition, Top New York City Intellectual Property Litigator, 2013 - 2018