Christopher Kroon is an IP litigator at Duane Morris. As a registered US patent attorney and partner of the firm, Chris represents generic pharmaceutical, biotechnology and medical device companies in intellectual property litigation in federal district courts throughout the US, as well as inter parte review (IPR) proceedings before the US Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
Chris has particular expertise in Hatch-Waxman and medical device cases, and has handled intellectual property cases covering diverse areas of technology including recombinant proteins, fluorescent and halogen lighting, epidermal scanners, and semiconductors.
Chris counsels and represents pharmaceutical and biotechnology clients from the earliest stages of product selection and pre-litigation activities (including patent avoidance and invalidation strategies) through the entirety of filing the Paragraph IV notice letter, fact and expert discovery, claim construction, trial, and appeal.
Chris has litigated disputes concerning pharmaceutical compounds, drug and finished dose formulation (including oral, topical, injectable, and subcutaneous dosage forms), crystallization and polymorphs, dosing schedules, drug indications and uses, adverse events, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics, organic and process chemistry, and methods of treatment.
Chris has extensive experience representing and counseling clients operating in the medical device, health and life sciences industries. Chris has represented global medical device companies in connection with products in the upper extremities (shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand), lower extremities (foot and ankle including bone plates and screws), and biologics markets (xenograft), as well as large joint orthopedic devices for the hip and knee.
Chris is also registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and has prosecuted patent and trademark applications relating to cardiac defibrillators, stents, catheters and other transvascular devices, as well as recombinant proteins and hormone detection kits.
In addition, Chris provides pre-litigation counseling, assisting with developing non-infringing designs and evaluating the use of litigation alternatives, such as IPR proceedings and ex parte reexaminations. Chris represents clients across broad range of industries, including companies in the electronics, lighting, building and high-performance materials technology sectors.
He has represented companies from the Fortune 100 to close-held corporations and individual inventors across diverse technologies, including semiconductors, fluorescent, halogen and LED lighting products, telecommunications systems, data compression technologies, epidermal scanners, fire arms, RNA/DNA genetic testing systems, asphalt shingles, PVC piping and pavement repair materials, to name several.
Chris has also represented clients in trademark and copyright litigation and in asserting or defending claims of trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition. Chris also handles transactional matters relating to intellectual property including infringement and validity opinions, patent licenses, confidentiality agreements and due diligence.
- Nuance Communications, Inc. v. MModal LLC, Case No. 1:17-cv-01484-JFB-SRF (D.Del.). Represent MultiModal in a patent infringement suit filed by Nuance Communications involving five patents related to speech recognition and transcription technology. Matter is currently pending.
- In re Copaxone Consolidated Cases (Amneal), Case No. 2017-1575 (Fed. Cir.): Obtained affirmance of District Court judgment invalidating four patents related to glatiramer acetate 40 mg/mL.
- MModal Services, Ltd. v. Nuance Communications, Inc., Case No. 1:18-cv-00901-SJC (N.D.Ga.). Represent MModal Services, Ltd. in a patent infringement suit filed against Nuance Communications involving five patents related to speech recognition and transcription technology. Matter is currently pending.
- Alnylam Pharmaceuticals v. Dicerna Pharmaceuticals, Case No. 15-cv-4126 (Commonwealth of Massachusetts – Leibensperger). Member of the trial team representing Dicerna in a trade secret misappropriation suit concerning RNA interference technology. Resolved before trial on terms the client found favorable.
- Dicerna Pharmaceuticals v. Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Case No. 17-cv-11466 (D.Mass – NMG). Member of the trial team representing Dicerna in an antitrust suit brought against Alnylam Pharmaceuticals concerning RNA interference technology. Resolved before trial on terms the client found favorable.
- Represented Wockhardt in Paragraph IV litigation involving Otsuka’s oral Abilify. Negotiated a settlement and license agreement permitting entry into the market prior to the expiration of the Orange Book Patents.
- Howmedica Osteonics Corp. et al. v. Wright Medical Technology, Inc., 2:11-cv-6499 (D.N.J. 2011) Represented defendant Wright Medical Technology, Inc. in a patent infringement matter relating to acetabular cup assembly with selected bearing.
- Wright Medical Technology, Inc. v. OsteoImplant Technology, Inc., Case No. 04-cv-1167 (D.N.J.- M. Bumb). Patent infringement litigation with tens of millions at stake concerning modular hip replacement prostheses. Settled on terms the client found favorable.
- Teva Pharmaceuticals et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, et al., 17-00074 (D.Del. G. Sleet). Currently representing Amneal Pharmaceuticals as declaratory judgment plaintiff against Teva in litigation involving method of manufacturing COPAXONE®, the active ingredient of which is glatiramer acetate.
- Sepracor v. Wockhardt, Case No. 09-CV-1302 (D.N.J. – D.Cavanaugh). Represented Wockhardt in ANDA litigation regarding LUNESTA®, the active ingredient of which is eszopiclone. Settled prior to trial on terms the client found favorable.
- Member of a team of lawyers representing a Fortune 100 pharmaceutical company in a multibillion-dollar patent and antitrust litigation arising out of technology relating to the pharmaceutical application of recombinant proteins.
- Represented one of the largest manufacturers and distributors of lighting products in the United States. Representation involves several matters dealing with both design and utility patents concerning fluorescent and halogen light bulbs.
- Successfully opposed summary judgment on behalf of a small independent inventor against a Fortune 200 pharmaceutical company in a landmark decision relating to correction of patent inventorship.
- Franklin Pierce Law Center, J.D., magna cum laude, 2004
- University of New Hampshire, B.S., summa cum laude, 1999
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- American Bar Association
- Massachusetts State Bar Association
- Boston Bar Association
- American Intellectual Property Bar Association
Rate : $$$$