Q: What are some of the department's most satisfying successes of the past year and why?

A: We achieved an important dismissal of Enzo Biochem's patent infringement claims against our clients, Roche and Becton Dickinson, when the district court invalidated Enzo's patent and entered judgment in our clients' favor.

We were retained to replace prior counsel when Swatch was facing a renewed motion for summary judgment and two separate motions for sanctions. We persuaded the district court to deny the pending motions and now have the case back on track for trial in October.

We achieved a significant victory in a trade secret matter for Brazilian biotechnology and clean energy company GranBio when the court denied plaintiffs' motion for preliminary injunction. An injunction would have shut down GranBio's $300M ethanol plant, endangering the jobs of hundreds of employees in one of the most impoverished regions of Brazil and cutting off one of the few sources of this promising biofuel globally.

We secured important victories for Gillette when the federal circuit affirmed all of the PTAB's decisions in multiple IPR proceedings in which Gillette and others challenged a large number of patents and claims asserted by Zond.

We also persuaded the federal circuit to reverse a district court's grant of summary judgment of non-infringement to Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, which sought to market a generic copy of Braintree's flagship product, SUPREP. The decision was a complete victory, as the federal circuit also remanded with instructions to enter judgment in Braintree's favor.

Q: A prospective client in crisis calls and asks why your team should be retained. What is your answer?

A: The depth and breadth of our expertise—across a wide range of technologies, forums and subject matters—is unmatched. We have a deep bench of trial lawyers with experience trying IP cases across the country and in the ITC, a preeminent group of appellate specialists who have handled some of the most important IP appeals in recent memory, one of the leading—if not the leading—PTAB practices in the industry, extensive experience handling global and ex-US aspects of IP disputes and the ability to draw upon the strengths of our colleagues in closely related practice groups, such as the government and regulatory groups. In addition, our lawyers understand our clients' businesses and the technical aspects of their work. We have more than 120 lawyers with scientific and technical backgrounds, and clients trust us to truly understand their innovations and the business concerns and strategies related to IP and IP litigations.

Q: What traits do you respect most in opposing firms and lawyers?

A: Professionalism and civility.

Q: What sorts of trends are you seeing in litigation, and what do you think will be the most important development in the law/legal business that will impact your field in the next 10 years?

A: The focus of IP and IP-related disputes towards different technologies, such as technologies responsible for dramatic advances in healthcare and technological convergence in consumer devices, e.g. autonomous vehicles and IoT devices.

Patent disputes are increasingly playing out in the context of IPRs in the Patent Office.

There is an increasingly global nature of patent disputes, requiring coordination in multiple jurisdictions.

Q: What is the firm doing to ensure that future generations of litigators are ready to take the helm?

A: We are fortunate to already have a deep roster of first-chair trial and appellate lawyers with a diversity of backgrounds and viewpoints, and we are committed to continuing to expand these capabilities. For example, all IP litigation partners in our New York office have first-chaired major trials and argued important appeals. In addition, most of our IP litigation associates in New York have participated in multiple trials.