Patent Litigation

Representing both patent holders and accused infringers, our patent litigators bring a trial-centric approach focused on developing a litigation strategy and winning narrative from the outset. Our litigation teams are supported by patent prosecutors who have prepared thousands of patents worldwide.

Venable's patent litigators are trial lawyers who represent clients in complex, high-stakes patent disputes involving technologies, products, and innovations that are critical to their businesses. We are skilled at mastering complex technologies and presenting them in a clear, compelling way to judges, juries, arbitrators, administrative tribunals, and appellate courts.

Our team has a long record of achieving outstanding results for clients in federal courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and on appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. We handle disputes across industries—from technology and life sciences to consumer products and manufacturing—regularly representing clients in telecommunications, electronics, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, and other innovation-driven sectors.

We also have deep experience in the higher education space, representing universities and research institutions as both plaintiffs and defendants, and working closely with technology transfer offices to protect and monetize valuable intellectual property (IP).

Venable's patent litigation practice combines seasoned trial lawyers, technically trained IP litigators, and attorneys with deep scientific and engineering backgrounds. Our team includes former U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) patent examiners and federal circuit clerks. This collective experience means we are equally adept at enforcing patent rights and defending against patent infringement claims, and we can quickly grasp the technology at issue and build effective litigation strategies around it. We have both the experience and resources to handle matters ranging from focused competitor disputes to bet-the-company litigation.

Trial-Focused Strategy, Client-Centered Advocacy

Whether a client is involved in Hatch-Waxman litigation, asserting or defending a trade secret, or taking on non-practicing entities (NPEs), we approach patent litigation with the endgame in mind. From the earliest stages of a matter, we work with clients to identify the claims, defenses, technical issues, damages theories, and business objectives that will drive the case.

Clients turn to us for practical, business-focused litigation strategies. In some cases, that means preparing aggressively for trial. In others, it means using early case assessment, venue strategy, PTAB proceedings, licensing considerations, mediation, or targeted motion practice to reduce risk and achieve a favorable business resolution. We understand that patent disputes are not only legal matters—they are business matters. Our clients rely on us to protect core products, defend market position, manage litigation risk, preserve business relationships, and pursue outcomes that align with their commercial objectives.

Experience in Key Patent Venues

Venable's team has a proven track trying cases in all of the country's major patent venues, including in the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, the District of Delaware, the District of New Jersey, and the International Trade Commission, among many others.

We also have extensive experience handling inter partes reviews, reexaminations and other post-grant proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and have recorded numerous wins in precedential appeals before the Federal Circuit and other courts of appeals.

PTAB, Inter Partes Review (IPR), and Post-Grant Review

Venable's patent litigators have substantial experience before PTAB in IPR, post-grant review (PGR), and covered business method (CBM) proceedings. Whether challenging a competitor's patent or defending a client's IP against administrative attacks, we develop coordinated strategies that account for parallel district court litigation, settlement dynamics, and estoppel considerations.

ITC Section 337 Investigations

We appreciate that ITC investigations offer patent holders a powerful enforcement tool with expedited timelines and the potential for exclusion orders that bar infringing products from entering the United States. Our litigators have experience navigating the ITC's unique procedural requirements, coordinating parallel proceedings in district court, and addressing the domestic industry and public interest considerations that are central to ITC practice.

Standard-Essential Patents (SEPs) and Fair, Reasonable, and Non-discriminatory (FRAND) Licensing

Our team advises clients on disputes involving SEPs and FRAND licensing obligations. These matters require a nuanced understanding of patent law, antitrust principles, and the complex licensing frameworks that govern industry standards. We represent both patent holders seeking fair compensation for their contributions to industry standards and implementers facing demands from SEP owners.

Non-Practicing Entity (NPE) Defense

Venable has wide-ranging experience defending operating companies against claims brought by NPEs and patent assertion entities. We understand the business models and litigation tactics employed by patent monetization firms and develop defense strategies designed to achieve efficient resolutions. Our approach combines aggressive early case assessment, targeted invalidity and non-infringement challenges, PTAB petitions, and joint defense coordination to minimize disruption and cost to our clients' businesses.

Broad Technical and Industry Experience

Our patent litigation matters span a wide range of industries and technologies. In the life sciences sector, we handle disputes involving biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, diagnostics, cell and gene therapy, chemistry, materials science, nutraceuticals, dietary supplements, and animal health. In the technology sector, we represent clients in software and computer systems, telecommunications, electronics and microprocessors, automotive technologies, entertainment and financial technologies, and manufacturing processes. We also have significant experience with consumer products across multiple industries.

Experience
+

Technology

  • Represented Canon, enforcing patents on laser printer and copier toner delivery technology against the aftermarket, before the International Trade Commission (ITC) and in district courts across the country, leading to four General Exclusion Orders and numerous district court injunctions. In a district court case in N.D. Ga. involving a key patent on a toner bottle technology for Canon's imageRUNNER® machines, the jury, following a 10-day trial, returned a verdict for Canon on all issues, including direct infringement, indirect infringement, and willful infringement, and awarded the full measure of damages sought. The court subsequently awarded Canon enhanced damages and a permanent injunction
  • Represented Canon in a set of D. Del. actions brought by Intellectual Ventures, involving more than 20 patents on various technologies, including image sensors, digital cameras, scanners, and laser drivers. In one case, after defeating two patents on summary judgment, in two back-to-back jury trials on the remaining four, the second resulted in a verdict of non-infringement. In another, defeated four patents through Markman and summary judgment proceedings, before the case as to the remaining patents was resolved, just prior to trial
  • Represented Candid Care Co. in D. Del. and W.D. Tex. and before the federal circuit, defending against a competitor's patents on a telemedicine workflow. In the first case the Delaware Court invalidated the asserted patent under Section 101 on a motion to dismiss, which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. In the second case, the Texas court transferred the case to Delaware, causing the plaintiff to unilaterally grant Candid a covenant not to sue to divest the Delaware court of jurisdiction
  • Represented a major telecommunications network supplier in a series of cases brought by the same patent holder across three districts. Obtained successful results in all three: dismissal of the first case based on a finding of patent ineligibility, which was affirmed on appeal; obtained a covenant not to sue after briefing patent ineligibility in the second case; and obtained summary judgment of non-infringement in the third
  • Represented a major banking institution against a nonpracticing entity in D. Del. and invalidated all claims of three asserted patents on 35 U.S.C. § 101 grounds at the pleadings stage
  • Represented Sirona Dental Systems (now Dentsply Sirona) in D. Del., enforcing six patents on CMOS imaging technology developed at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory against competitors. Following a Markman order in which virtually all claim terms at issue were favorably construed and an order striking a key defense, a resolution was reached
  • Represented Dentsply Sirona in an E.D.N.Y. case, defending against a patent on an orthodontic bracket. Following a Markman hearing, the court determined that the patentee had disclaimed key subject matter. That ruling made it impossible for the patent owner to maintain its infringement assertions, resulting in a voluntary dismissal with prejudice
  • Represented Prudential in S.D. Ohio, in a trade secret case in which Prudential was accused of wrongly acquiring and using alleged trade secrets to develop Legacy Protection Plus®, an optional death benefit rider sold with Prudential Premier® variable annuity products. Following more than three years of litigation, the court granted summary judgment in Prudential's favor, finding that no misappropriation had occurred. Also served as lead counsel in plaintiff's appeal to the Sixth Circuit, which affirmed the decision of the district court
  • Represented a medical device manufacturer in patent litigation involving a fixation system for distal radius fractures. Succeeded in obtaining a noninfringement verdict for all asserted claims at trial
  • Representing a medical device manufacturer in patent litigation and IPRs involving patents directed to suture anchor design and methods for ligament augmentation. Succeeded in obtaining stay of district court litigation after IPR institutions on all asserted patents. Succeeded in invalidating all five asserted patents through IPR
  • Represented a streaming media service company against a nonpracticing entity in the N.D. Cal., including inter partes review proceedings before the USPTO, after successfully transferring the case out of the E.D. Tex.
  • Represented Medtronic, Inc. against NuVasive, Inc. in multiple inter partes reexaminations and inter partes reviews involving nerve detection technology
  • Represented two major automotive OEM defendants in litigation involving multiple patents covering driver-assist functionalities in D. Delaware; obtained summary judgment of non-infringement, which was upheld after appeal by the plaintiff to the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Federal Circuit
  • Representing domestic automotive OEM defendant in multidistrict litigation consolidated in E.D. Michigan defending against six patents asserted against allegedly standards-essential 4G/LTE connectivity technology, and in a related action in Mannheim, Germany, involving a corresponding European patent; obtained favorable decision in Germany and partial summary judgment of non-infringement in Michigan

Life Sciences

  • After a five-day jury trial and over four years of litigation on behalf of client Vectura against defendant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), our team obtained an $89.7 million verdict of infringement, willful infringement, and non-obviousness of a Vectura patent on inhalation formulation technology, which the district court increased to $107 million, and the jury further awarded an ongoing royalty on U.S. sales of GSK's infringing Breo Ellipta, Anoro Ellipta, and Incruse Ellipta inhaler products. The federal circuit affirmed.
  • Represented a health technology company and a pharmaceutical company in securing a complete jury verdict in defending against a $90 million patent claim brought by a medical diagnostics company involving HIV-1 detection technology
  • Representing Astellas, Pfizer, and the University of California against numerous generic drug manufacturers on patents covering the prostate cancer drug Xtandi®
  • Representing Jazz and Pharma Mar against generic drug manufacturers on patents covering the small cell lung cancer drug Zepzelca®
  • Represented Sanofi in multiple district court litigations, inter partes review proceedings, and federal circuit appeals involving patents covering Jevtana®, a chemotherapy for advanced prostate cancer
  • Represented Sanofi in multiple district court litigations and federal circuit appeals involving patents covering Multaq®, an anti-arrhythmic medication
  • Represented Genzyme in multiple district court litigations involving patents covering Cerdelga®, a medication for treating Gaucher disease
  • Represented Novartis in a series of district court litigations, federal circuit appeals, and PTAB proceedings involving patents covering Afinitor® and Zortress® (everolimus) for oncology and transplant indications
  • Representing Otsuka against generic companies in litigations concerning patents related to the kidney disease treatment JYNARQUE®
  • Represented Novartis in Hatch-Waxman litigations involving patents on its Entresto® product (D. Del.)
  • Represented Amgen in litigations against more than 20 generic companies involving a patent covering the Sensipar® pharmaceutical composition for treating hyperparathyroidism and carcinoma
  • Represented Columbia University against Illumina in a patent litigation and IPRs related to DNA sequencing products
  • Represented Sanofi and Bristol-Myers Squibb in litigation against multiple generic challengers involving patents covering Plavix®, a leading antithrombotic agent

Government Experience

  • Former patent examiners at the USPTO
  • Individuals have clerked in the federal courts, including the federal circuit

Science and Technical Degrees
+

  • Applied molecular biology
  • Astronomy-physics
  • Biochemistry
  • Biological sciences
  • Chemical engineering
  • Chemistry
  • Computer engineering
  • Computer science
  • Economics
  • Electrical engineering
  • Management information
  • Mathematics
  • Mechanical engineering
  • Microbiology
  • Molecular biology
  • Molecular genetics
  • Molecular parasitology
  • Natural science
  • Organic chemistry
  • Physics

Recognition
+

  • U.S. News-Best Lawyers
    • Firm of the Year, Technology Law, 2017, 2022
    • Best Law Firms, Litigation – Patent (Tier 1), Washington, DC, 2012 – 2020
    • Best Law Firms, Litigation – Patent (Tier 1), National, 2020, 2022 - 2023
    • Best Law Firms, Litigation – Patent (Tier 2), National, 2012 – 2019
  • Legal 500, Intellectual Property - Patents: Litigation (Full Coverage), 2014 – 2015, 2019 – 2023, 2026
  • Chambers USA, Intellectual Property: Litigation, District of Columbia, 2016, 2025 – 2026