Print This Page      Email to a Friend

   3Robert F. GreenChicago(312) 883-8080rgreen@greengriffith.comrgreen@greengriffith.comGreen Griffith & Borg-Breen LLPwww.greengriffith.comwww.greengriffith.comgreenrobertf.jpgIntellectual Property LawPatent LawPharmaceutical IP LitigationAppellate PracticeComplex ArbitrationDue Diligence ReviewsLicenses & Negotiations
Robert F. Greenrgreen@greengriffith.com
Green Griffith & Borg-Breen LLPhttp://www.greengriffith.com
676 N Michigan Ave Ste 3900
Chicago IL 60611
Ph.(312) 883-8080 Fx.(312) 883-8001Leading Lawyers Magazine story about this lawyer
Green_Business2010.pdf
Recommended by peers in:    Extensive Experience in:
Intellectual Property Law    Pharmaceutical IP Litigation
Patent Law    Appellate Practice
    Complex Arbitration
    Due Diligence Reviews
    Licenses & Negotiations
Advisory Board Member
County:  Cook
Practice Description:  
Bob is a founding partner of Green Griffith. He practices intellectual property law exclusively, with a concentration in pharmaceutical, biochemical and chemical litigation and opinions.

Bob has represented clients under the Hatch‐Waxman Act since it was passed in 1984. In his decades of experience as lead counsel in Hatch‐Waxman litigation, he has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in matters concerning over 40 drug products.

In addition, Bob has argued numerous pharmaceutical patent appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He has broad experience in managing patent portfolios as well as in counseling and rendering opinions on patent validity, patent infringement and other proprietary information. He also specializes in formulating patent strategies in the pharmaceutical field for both brand and generic pharmaceutical companies.

Prior to co‐founding Green Griffith in 2015, Bob served as Vice President of Leydig, Voit & Mayer, Ltd. Earlier in his career, Bob served as inside patent counsel for the chemical division of Akzo for about ten years and subsequently as inside patent counsel for Celanese Chemical Company.


Notable Cases and Results:  
Pending Litigation
Adapt v. Teva – Bob is lead counsel for Opiant Pharmaceuticals, Inc., patent owner and licensor to Adapt Pharma, in litigations against Teva related to Teva’s Abbreviated New Drug Applications that seek approval to market a generic equivalent to Adapt’s Narcan® nasal rescue product, which was developed by Opiant for emergency rescue of patients suffering from opioid overdose.

Dexcel v. Apotex – Bob is counsel for Dexcel in litigation against generic applicant Apotex involving Dexcel’s patents relating to Dexcel’s Omeprazole DR Tablets, 20 mg (OTC).

Horizon v. Actavis – Bob was counsel in successfully upholding the validity of Horizon’s Orange Book-listed patent for its PENNSAID® 2% topical diclofenac sodium product in Hatch Waxman litigation against generic applicant Actavis Labs-UT (now Teva). As a result of this ruling, Teva is barred from launching a generic version of PENNSAID® 2% in the United States until October 2027. Actavis has appealed the ruling to the Federal Circuit and the appeal is currently pending.

Clarus v. Lipocine – Bob is counsel for Clarus in Patent Interference with Lipocine involving Clarus’s U.S. Patent 8,828,428, which claims an oral form of testosterone undecanoate. Clarus also brought a declaratory judgment suit against Lipocine in D. Del. for infringement of U.S. Patent 8,828,428 in anticipation of FDA approval of Lipocine’s New Drug Application seeking to market an oral testosterone replacement formulation LPCN-1021. The district court action was dismissed without prejudice after Lipocine failed to receive FDA approval. The interference remains pending.

Horizon v. Par (D. Del. and D.N.J.) – Bob is lead counsel for Horizon in Hatch-Waxman litigations against Par related to Par’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that seeks approval to market a generic equivalent to Horizon’s RAVICTI® oral formulation for the treatment of Urea Cycle Disorders (UCD) in patients two months of age and older.

Par v. Horizon (PTAB) – Bob is lead counsel for Horizon in multiple pending IPR proceedings filed by Par against Horizon patents relating to Horizon’s RAVICTI® product used for the treatment of Urea Cycle Disorders (UCDs) in patients two months of age and older.

Horizon v. Iancu (PTAB) – Bob is lead counsel for Horizon in a pending IPR proceeding defending one of Horizon Therapeutics’ patents relating to Horizon’s RAVICTI® product used for the treatment of Urea Cycle Disorders (UCDs) in patients two months of age and older. The Federal Circuit appeal remains pending in this matter.

Other Litigation:
Dexcel v. Takeda Pharmaceutical – As lead counsel, Bob successfully defended Dexcel against alleged infringement of Takeda’s Orange Book-listed patents for lansoprazole delayed-released orally disintegrating tablets (“ODT”). As a result of this ruling, Dexcel launched the first lansoprazole ODT product sold Over-The-Counter (“OTC”) in the US market.

Horizon v. Amneal, Horizon v. Teligent – Bob was counsel for Horizon in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving Horizon’s patents relating to its PENNSAID® topical diclofenac sodium product. Horizon successfully settled the actions against Amneal and Teligent. As a result of these settlements, Amneal and Teligent will not be able to enter the market with a generic equivalent of the PENNSAID® product until January 10, 2029 (about 1 year prior to expiration of the last-expiring Orange Book-listed patent).

Par v. Horizon (PTAB) – Bob was counsel in successfully defending one of Horizon Therapeutics’ Orange Book-listed patents for its RAVICTI® oral liquid product in a PTAB inter partes review (“IPR”) proceeding against Par, IPR2015-01117. Par appealed PTAB’s decision to the Federal Circuit, where Bob presented oral arguments. The Federal Circuit affirmed per curiam PTAB’s decision upholding the patentability of Horizon’s ’012 patent.

Horizon v. Par (E.D. Tex.) – Bob was lead counsel for Horizon in Hatch-Waxman litigation against Par related to Par’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that seeks approval to market a generic equivalent to Horizon’s RAVICTI® oral formulation for the treatment of Urea Cycle Disorders (UCD) in patients two months of age and older. Subsequent to the Federal Circuit per curiam affirmation of PTAB’s decision upholding the patentability of Horizon’s ’012 patent, this litigation in E.D. Tex. was voluntarily dismissed and a new suit was filed in Delaware.

Horizon v. Lupin – Bob was lead counsel for Horizon in Hatch-Waxman litigation against generic applicant Lupin involving Horizon’s patents relating to its PENNSAID® topical diclofenac sodium product. That litigation was successfully settled.

Horizon v. Lupin (D.N.J.) – Bob was lead counsel for Horizon in Hatch-Waxman litigations against Lupin related to Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that seeks approval to market a generic equivalent to Horizon’s RAVICTI® oral formulation for the treatment of Urea Cycle Disorders (UCD) in patients two months of age and older. Those matters settled.

Lupin v. Horizon (PTAB) – Bob was lead counsel for Horizon in defending IPR proceedings (IPR2017-01159 and IPR2017-01160) filed by Lupin against Horizon’s patents relating to Horizon’s RAVICTI® product used for the treatment of Urea Cycle Disorders (UCD) in patients two months of age and older. Pursuant to a settlement agreement reached between the parties, the IPRs were terminated.

Lupin v. Horizon (PTAB) – Bob was lead counsel for Horizon in defending IPR proceedings (IPR2016-00829) filed by Lupin against Horizon patents relating to Horizon’s RAVICTI® product used for the treatment of Urea Cycle Disorders (UCD) in patients two months of age and older. Horizon appealed PTAB’s final written decision to the Federal Circuit. Pursuant to a settlement agreement reached between the parties, Lupin withdrew as Appellees from the Federal Circuit Appeal.

Dexcel v. Sun and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories – Bob was counsel for Dexcel in litigation against generic applicants Sun and DRL involving Dexcel’s patents relating to Dexcel’s Omeprazole DR Tablets, 20 mg (OTC). That matter settled.

Helsinn v. Cipla – Bob was counsel in litigation relating to Cipla’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Helsinn’s Aloxi® palonsetron product. That matter settled.

Horizon v. Watson – Bob was lead counsel for Horizon in litigation against Watson related to Watson’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Horizon’s Rayos® tablet product. That litigation was successfully settled.

Warner Chilcott v. Lupin – Bob was lead counsel for Lupin in litigation related to Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Warner Chilcott’s Generess Fe® norethindrone and ethinyl estradiol chewable tablets product. After a district court judgment in favor of Lupin, the matter was settled.

Pfizer v. Lupin – Bob was lead counsel in litigation related to Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Pfizer’s Toviaz® fesoterodine fumarate product.

Horizon v. Par – Bob was lead counsel for Horizon in litigation related to Par’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Horizon’s Duexis® ibuprofen and famotidine product. That action was settled with Par agreeing to not market the product prior to January 1, 2023.

Pfizer v. Lupin – Bob was lead counsel for Lupin in litigation related to Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent of Pristiq® desvenlafaxine. That matter settled.

Merck v. Cipla – Bob was lead counsel in litigation related to Cipla’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Merck’s Sustiva® efavirenz product. That matter settled.

Warner Chilcott v. Lupin – Bob was lead counsel in litigation related to Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Warner Chilcott’s Lo Loestrin® norethindrone acetate and ethinyl estradiol product. That matter settled.

Bayer v. Lupin – Bob was lead counsel in litigation related to Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Bayer’s Yaz® drosperinone: ethyinyl estradiol product. In a precedential decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, Lupin prevailed in the litigation with a holding that Bayer’s patent‐in‐suit was invalid as obvious.

Ortho‐McNeil v. Lupin – Bob was lead counsel in litigation related to Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Ortho‐McNeil’s Ortho‐Tricyclen Lo® norgestimate/ethinyl estradiol product. That litigation was successfully settled with Lupin being granted a license that allows Lupin to market the product in December, 2015, prior to expiration of the patent in suit.

Gilead v. Sigmapharm – Bob was lead counsel for Sigmapharm in litigation related to Sigmapharm’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Gilead’s Hepsera® adefovir dipivoxil product. Gilead voluntarily dismissed the action prior to trial.

Pfizer v. Lupin – Bob was lead counsel in litigation related to Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Pfizer’s Lyrica® pregabalin product.

Apotex v. Lupin – Bob was lead counsel for Lupin in litigation related to Lupin’s generic quinapril products. That matter settled.

Bayer v. Lupin – Bob was lead counsel for Lupin in litigation related to Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent of Natazia®.

Shire v. Natco Pharma – Bob was lead counsel in litigation relating to Natco’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Shire’s Fosrenol® lanthanum carbonate product. That litigation was dismissed with prejudice, allowing Natco to move forward to obtain FDA approval for marketing.

Abbott v. Lupin – Bob was lead counsel in litigation related to Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Abbott’s Trilipix® choline fenofibrate product. That litigation was successfully settled. Bayer Schering Pharma AG and Bayer Healthcare Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Lupin Limited and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ‐ Bob was lead counsel in litigation related to Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Bayer’s Yasmin® drosperinone and ethinylestradiol product. Lupin prevailed in that litigation with a holding of no infringement because the asserted patent did not cover the approved use of the Yaz product.

Eli Lilly v. APP Pharmaceuticals – Bob was lead counsel at trial in litigation related to APP Pharmaceutical’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Eli Lilly’s Alimta® pemetrexed product.

Medicis v. Lupin – Bob was lead counsel in litigation related to Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Medicis’ Solodyn® minocycline product. That litigation was settled successfully.

Ortho‐McNeil v. Lupin – Bob was lead counsel in litigation involving Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic version of Levaquin® levlofloxacin tablets.

Wyeth v. Lupin Ltd. – Bob was lead counsel in litigation involving Lupin’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic version of Effexor® XR Capsules. That matter was settled.

AstraZeneca v. Dexcel – Bob was lead counsel in litigation involving Dexcel’s New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic version of Prilosec® OTC omeprazole tablets. The litigation was settled successfully and the litigation was dismissed with prejudice, 2007. After the dismissal of the litigation, Bob’s client, Dexcel, became the first company to manufacture a generic omeprazole over‐the‐counter product for the U.S. market.

Pfizer Inc., et al. v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Company et al. – Bob was lead counsel in litigation involving Mutual’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market generic versions of Neurontin® gabapentin tablets. The district court granted summary judgment of noninfringement and the case was subsequently dismissed with prejudice (2008).

Janssen v. Mylan Labs and Dr. Reddy’s – Bob was lead counsel in litigation involving Mylan’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic version of Risperidal® risperidone tablets. Janssen prevailed in the litigation, which was based upon a molecule patent.

Jones Pharma et.al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. – Bob was lead counsel in litigation involving Mylan’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic version of Levoxyl® levothyroxine tablets. The case was dismissed with prejudice (2006). As a result, Mylan was able to market its generic levothyroxine tablets.

AstraZeneca AB, Aktiebolaget Hassle, KBI‐E, Inc. v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co., Inc., 384 F.3d 1333, 72 U.S.P.Q.2d 1726 (Fed. Cir. Sep 30, 2004) (NO. 04‐1100) – Bob was lead counsel in litigation involving the validity and alleged infringement of AstraZeneca’s patent relating to felodipine (Plendil®). A holding of non‐infringement was issued by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2004). Bob’s client, Mutual Pharmaceutical, was then the first company to market a generic equivalent of Plendil® and was granted 180 days of patent‐challenge exclusivity.

Glaxo v. Novopharm – The litigation involved the alleged infringement of Glaxo’s patent on Form 2 ranitidine hydrochloride, the active ingredient in Zantac®. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed a holding of noninfringement, 42 USPQ2d 1257 (Fed. Cir. 1997). Bob was lead trial counsel and argued the case on appeal. As a result of the litigation, Bob’s client, Novopharm, was the first to market a generic equivalent of prescription Zantac® and also was the first to market a generic equivalent to the over‐the‐counter product Zantac® 75 (for which Novopharm was granted 180 days of patent‐challenge exclusivity).

Abbott v. Novopharm – Bob represented Novopharm in litigation successfully challenging the expiration date of Abbott’s basic patent on terazosin, the active ingredient in Hytrin®. 41 USPQ2d 1535 (Fed. Cir. 1997), 38 USPQ2d 1309 (N.D. IL 1996). Bob was lead trial counsel and argued the case on appeal.

Glaxo v. Novopharm – Bob represented Novopharm in litigation involving the validity of Glaxo’s patent on Form 2 ranitidine hydrochloride, the active ingredient in Zantac®. Bob was lead trial counsel and argued the case on appeal. 34 USPQ2d 1565 (Fed. Cir. 1995), 29 USPQ2d 1126 (E.D. N.C. 1993). The lower court ruling of validity was affirmed in a 2‐1 ruling. Novopharm subsequently prevailed in related litigation regarding the issue of infringement.

Burroughs‐Wellcome v. Novopharm – Bob represented Novopharm in litigation involving the validity of BW’s patent on AZT – 32 USPQ2d 1915 (Fed. Cir. 1994), 29 USPQ2d 1126 (E.D.N.C. 1993). Bob was lead trial counsel and argued the case on appeal. The lower court ruling of validity was reversed in part, remanded and settled.

Torpharm v. Novopharm – Bob represented Novopharm in litigation involving the validity of Torpharm’s patent on Form 1 ranitidine hydrochloride. He was lead trial and appellate counsel. The patent was held invalid and the ruling was affirmed on appeal.

Torpharm v. Shalala et al. – Bob represented Novopharm in litigation filed by Torpharm to challenge the FDA’s grant of 180‐day patent‐challenge exclusivity to Novopharm for generic Zantac® 75. Bob was lead trial and appellate counsel. The lower court ruling in Novopharm’s favor was granted summary affirmance on appeal without argument.

Pharmacia & Upjohn v. Novopharm – Bob represented Novopharm in litigation involving the validity of P&U’s patent covering the formulation used in Glynase®. The lower court found the patent to be invalid and no appeal was taken. Bob was lead counsel.

Sloan‐Kettering v. Fujisawa – Bob was lead trial counsel representing Fujisawa in litigation involving the validity of SK’s patent alleged to cover Fujisawa’s Nebupent® aerosolized pentamidine. The case was settled.

Bristol‐Myers Squibb v. American Pharmaceutical Partners – Bob represented APP in litigation involving the validity of BMS’s patent on Platinol® cisplatin. The lower court judgment of invalidity was affirmed on appeal, unpublished. He was lead trial counsel and argued the case on appeal. As a result of the successful litigation APP was the first company to market a generic equivalent of Platinol® with 180 days of patent‐challenge exclusivity.

Novartis v. American Pharmaceutical Partners – Bob represented American Pharmaceutical Partners in litigation involving the validity and alleged infringement of Novartis’ patent relating to pamidronate (Aredia®). A consent order of noninfringement was entered allowing APP to market its generic equivalent product. Bob was lead trial counsel.

Lupin v. Apotex – Bob was lead counsel for Lupin in litigation relating to Apotex’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Lupin Atlantis Holding’s Antara® fenofibrate product.

Lupin v. Paddock – Bob was lead counsel for Lupin in litigation relating to Paddock’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Lupin Atlantis Holding’s fenofibrate product.

Paddock v. Ethypharm – Bob was lead counsel for Lupin Atlantis Holdings’ and Ethypharm in litigation related to Paddock’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Lupin Atlantis Holdings’ Antara® fenofibrate product.

Lupin v. Ranbaxy – Bob was lead counsel for Lupin in litigation related to Ranbaxy’s Abbreviated New Drug Application that was seeking approval to market a generic equivalent to Lupin’s Antara® fenofibrate product.


Bar Admissions:  
Illinois, 1974
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.


Year of Birth:  1949

Law School:  The John Marshall School of Law, J.D., 1974

Undergraduate School:  University of Illinois, B.S., chemistry, 1971

Representative Clients:  
Mr. Green represents a broad range of clients, including Horizon Therapeutics, Dexcel Ltd., Clarus Therapeutics and Opiant Pharmaceuticals.


Employment History:  
Mr. Green previously was vice president of Leydig Voit & Mayer, the inside patent counsel for Celanese Chemical Company and the inside IP counsel for the U.S. chemical division for Akzona (now AkzoNobel).

Awards; Honors; Distinctions:
  • The Best Lawyers in America©, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Patent Law, 2016-2019
  • Illinois Super Lawyers, Intellectual Property Litigation, 2009-2018
  • “Global IP Star,” Managing IP, 2018
  • “Life Sciences Star,” LMG Life Sciences, 2012-2017
  • Intellectual Asset Management's (IAM) Patent 1000 in Litigation, 2015-2018
  • “The World's Leading Patent Practitioners,” Intellectual Asset Management's (IAM) 1000, 2012
  • “The World's Leading Patent Litigators,” Intellectual Asset Management's IAM Patent Litigation 250, 2011
  • “The World’s Leading Life Sciences Patent Litigators,” Intellectual Asset Management's IAM Life Sciences 250, 2010
  • Leading Lawyers, Intellectual Property Law and Patent Law, 2004-present
  • Leading Lawyers Advisory Board Member, 2016-present
  • AV® Preeminent™ Peer Review Rated (Highest Rating) – Martindale‐Hubbell


Legal Lectures:  
"The US Pharmaceutical Industry-Driving Forces-Patent And FDA," speaker for first round panel presentation, AIPPI Israel 2018: 3rd International Convention on The Economy of Innovation, Tel Aviv, Israel, 2018

Moderated the IP track titled, "The Impact of KSR, Seagate, Quanta, and Bilski on Business Decisions," 2009 Inside Counsel SuperConference, Chicago, May 5, 2009

"Non-Patent Exclusivity," presented at the FDA Boot Camp-Chicago Edition, Chicago, 2007

"Non-Patent Exclusivity," presented at the FDA Boot Camp-Chicago Edition, Chicago, 2006


"Innovation and its Discontents," presented at the John Marshall Law School, Chicago, 2005

"Shared Exclusivity Past, Present and Future," presented at the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA), Legal Symposium, Boca Raton, FL, 2004

"Patent Litigation Issues," presented at the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA), Industry Legal Symposium, Washington, D.C., 2003

"Patentable Inventions or Invented Patents?" Regulatory Affairs Focus, October 2002

"Poly(patent)morphs, Inducement and More," presented at the Generic Pharmaceutical Association (GPhA) Annual Meeting, Coral Gables, 2002

"Patent FDA Strategies," presented at the National Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers (NAPM) Bulk Workshop Program, New York, 2001

"Patent Extension Issues," presented at National Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers (NAPM) Annual Meeting (2001), Puerto Rico, 2001

"Patent-FDA Strategies," Keynote Speaker, presented at UBS Warburg Global Specialty Pharmaceuticals Conference, New York, 2000

"Recently Enacted Changes to Patent Trademark Laws: How They Affect Your Practice, presented at Center for Intellectual Property Law, The John Marshall Law School, Chicago, 2000

"Patent Extension Issues," presented at the National Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers (NAPM) Annual Meeting, Puerto Rico, 2000

"Generic Versus Pharmaceutical Patent Strategies and Challenges-What's the Score?" presented at Rx and Biotech Generics, International Business Communications, Washington, 1999

"Gaming the System," presented at National Association of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers (NAPM) Annual Meeting, Puerto Rico, 1999

"Generic Versus Pharmaceutical Patent Strategies and Challenges-What's the Score?" presented at Chicagoland Pharmaceutical Discussion Group, Chicago, 1999


Firm Description:  
Green Griffith is a nationally ranked intellectual property law firm that leverages extensive experience, big picture vision and integrated strategy to produce favorable outcomes for its clients. Technical knowledge is part of the firm’s DNA, and its IP litigation expertise runs deep. Green Griffith partners have decades of experience assisting both generics and brand companies to navigate IP and related FDA issues, including the Hatch-Waxman Act and Inter Partes Reviews, as well as providing counseling in connection with acquisitions, due diligence and portfolio analysis. The firm’s background serving both sides of the courtroom makes it unique in the IP law space. Green Griffith attorneys possess exceptional technical and legal skill sets, enabling them to view matters from every angle and to resolve issues efficiently and effectively.

The firm’s attorneys are experienced in all aspects of patents, trademarks, trade secrets and other IP considerations involving the life sciences. Green Griffith litigators have represented clients in matters pending throughout the United States, including all district courts known for handling major patent cases, as well as numerous other district courts, the PTAB, the Federal Circuit, the D.C. Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. As a result, the attorneys have deep and broad expertise in all phases of patent litigation from pre-litigation counseling through Markman hearings, dispositive motions, jury trials and appeals, as well as Inter Partes Reviews.

The firm focuses on Patent Litigation including Hatch-Waxman Litigation, Chemical Patent Litigation and Pharmaceutical Patent Litigation, Client Counseling, IPR/PGR, Opinions, Acquisitions and Due Diligence.


1041977
Map to Office:   Click here to view map

  • Back To Search Results