Michael P Dougherty

Partner

Translate this page Share this page Print this page
Michael Dougherty

NEW YORK
T: +1 212 556 2103
F: +1 212 556 2222

E-mail
Profile   |   News & Insights

Michael Dougherty litigates patent cases in a wide variety of technologies in the U.S. District Courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. International Trade Commission. He has particular expertise in the fields of pharmaceutical products and biotechnology.

Recent highlights include successfully representing Roche Palo Alto LLC in a Hatch-Waxman suit against Ranbaxy, which ultimately resulted in Ranbaxy stipulating to the validity, enforceability, and infringement of Roche's patent. Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd. and Ranbaxy, Inc., Civil Action No. 06-2003 (FLW) (D.N.J. Order, Aug. 26, 2010). He argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on behalf of Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. in support of the International Trade Commission's dismissal of a complaint brought against Roche by Amgen, Inc. Amgen v. ITC, 565 F.3d 846 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Mr. Dougherty earned his J.D. from the Marshall-Wythe School of Law, College of William & Mary, where he was Executive Editor of the William & Mary Law Review, and his B.A., with honors, from Case Western Reserve University.

Below is a list of cases in which Michael has participated, segregated by those that involved pharmaceutical products and those that involved other technologies.

Pharmaceutical Cases

  • Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-05228-FLW-LHG (D.N.J.)(filed August 20, 2012)(lead counsel for Merck in Hatch-Waxman suit involving Merck's Propecia® product).

  • Merck Frosst Canada et al. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories et al., Case No. 3:12-cv-01324-FLW-LHG (D.N.J.)(lead counsel for Merck in Hatch-Waxman action involving Merck's Singulair® product).

  • Merck Frosst Canada & Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 3:12-cv-00210-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., filed Jan. 11, 2012)(lead counsel for Merck in Hatch-Waxman suit involving Merck's Singulair® product).

  • Merck Frosst Canada & Co. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-07569-FLW-LHG (D.N.J., filed Dec. 29, 2011)(lead counsel for Merck in Hatch-Waxman suit involving Merck's Singulair® product).

  • Schering Corporation v. Sandoz Inc., Civil Action No. 3:11-cv-02589-FLW-LHG (D.N.J. filed May 4, 2011)(lead counsel for Schering in Hatch-Waxman suit involving Schering's Noxafil® product).

  • Merck & Co., Inc. and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hetero Drugs Ltd., Unit III and Hetero USA Inc., (D.N.J. filed Nov. 19, 2010) (lead counsel for Merck in Hatch Waxman suit concerning Merck's Propecia® product).

  • Merck & Co., Inc. and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Hetero Drugs Ltd., Unit III and Invagen Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Civil Action No. CV 10-5370 (JS) (WDW) (E.D.N.Y. filed Nov. 19, 2010) (lead counsel for Merck in Hatch-Waxman suit concerning Merck's Propecia® product).

  • Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Ranbaxy Laboratories Limited and Ranbaxy, Inc., Civil Action No. 06-2003 (FLW) (D.N.J. 2010) and Federal Circuit Appeal Nos. 2010-1056,-1101 (co-counsel for Roche in Hatch-Waxman suit against Ranbaxy concerning Roche's Valcyte® product; Ranbaxy ultimately stipulated to the validity, enforceability, and infringement of the patent-in-suit. See Order (Aug. 26, 2010)).

  • Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Apotex Corp., Civil Action No. 09-647 (PGS) (D.N.J. 2009) (co-counsel for Roche in successful action to block launch of generic version of Roche's CellCept® product).

  • Amgen, Inc. v. International Trade Comm'n, 565 F.3d 846 (Fed Cir. 2009) (presented oral argument on behalf of Roche to sustain the ITC's termination of the proceeding filed by Amgen concerning Roche's MIRCERA® product).

  • Amgen, Inc. v. International Trade Comm'n, 364 F.3d 1358 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc) (principal author of Roche's petition for rehearing en banc in case concerning Roche's MIRCERA® product; the petition resulted in the court's withdrawal of its previous opinion reported at 519 F.3d 1343 (Fed. Cir. 2008)).

  • In the Matter of Certain Products and Pharmaceutical Compositions Containing Recombinant Human Erythropoietin, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-568 (2006) (co-counsel for Roche in ITC proceeding brought by Amgen against Roche's MIRCERA® product).

  • Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Eon Labs Mfg. Inc., Federal Circuit Appeal Nos. 03-1211, 03-1260 (lead counsel for amicus curiae Federal Circuit Bar Association in support of petition for rehearing en banc of decision reported at 363 F.3d 1306 (Fed. Cir. 2004)).

  • Sankyo v. Pfizer (real parties in interest) (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 2004) (co-counsel for Sankyo in interference concerning COX-2 inhibitors).

  • Eli Lilly & Co. v. Barr Labs., 251 F.3d 955 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (co-counsel for amicus curiae Federal Circuit Bar Association).

  • Administrators of the Tulane Educational Fund v. Debio Holding SA 177 F. Supp. 2d 545 (E.D. La. 2001) 60 USPQ2d 1541 (E.D. La. 2001) 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 9349 (E.D. La. 2000) (co-counsel for Tulane University in suit concerning Decapeptyl Acetate and Decapeptyl Pamoate).

  • Scripps Clinic and Research Foundation v. Baxter Healthcare Corp. (D. Del. 1992) (co-counsel for Scripps in case concerning recombinant and plasma derived Factor VIII).

  • Fritsch v. Lin, 21 USPQ2d 1737 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991); 21 USPQ2d 1739 (Bd. Pat. App. & Int. 1991) (co-counsel for Fritsch in patent interference concerning recombinant human erythropoietin).

  • Amgen, Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceutical Co., 927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991); 13 USPQ2d 1737 (D. Mass. 1989); 11 USPQ2d 1466 (D. Mass. 1989); 9 USPQ2d 1833 (D. Mass. 1989) (co-counsel for Chugai in case concerning recombinant human erythropoietin).

  • Amgen, Inc. v. International Trade Comm'n, 902 F.2d 1532 (Fed. Cir. 1990); 10 USPQ2d 1906 (USITC 1989) (co-counsel for respondent Chugai in ITC proceeding concerning recombinant human erythropoietin).

  • A.H. Robins Co. v. Erbamont Labs.; A.H. Robins Co. v. Cetus Ben-Venue Labs. (1988) (co-counsel for Robins in Hatch-Waxman Act cases concerning cancer chemotherapy drug metoclopramide).

  • Cedars-Sinai Medical Ctr. v. Revlon, Inc., 111 F.R.D. 24 (D. Del. 1986) (co-counsel for Revlon in case concerning lyophilized blood products).

Cases Involving Other Technologies

  • Phillips v. AWH Corp., 415 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (en banc) (lead counsel for amicus curiae Federal Circuit Bar Association).

  • Design Ideas Inc. v. Avon Products, (N.D. Ill. 2004) (co-counsel for Avon).

  • Yamaha v. Bombardier Inc., 60 USPQ2d 1541 (C.D. Cal. 2001)59 USPQ2d 1088 (C.D. Cal. 2001) (co-counsel for Bombardier in case involving personal watercraft).

  • In the Matter of Certain Personal Watercraft and Components Thereof ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-452 2001 ITC LEXIS 976 (2001) 2001 ITC LEXIS 865 (2001) (co-counsel for respondent Bombardier in case involving personal watercraft).

  • Union Oil Co. of California v. Atlantic Richfield Co. 208 F.3d 989 (Fed. Cir. 2000) 34 F. Supp 2d 1208 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (co-counsel for Atlantic Richfield, Chevron, Exxon, Mobil, Shell, and Texaco in case involving reformulated gasoline).

  • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Monsanto Co., 903 F. Supp. 680 (D. Del. 1995) (co-counsel for DuPont in case involving stain resistant nylon carpet fiber).

  • Technicon Instruments Corp. v. Alpkem Corp., 866 F.2d 417 (Fed. Cir. 1989) 664 F. Supp. 1558 (D. Ore. 1986) (co-counsel for Technicon in case involving medical testing technology).

Articles and Presentations

  • “The New Follow-On-Biologics Law: A Section by Section Analysis of the Patent Litigation Provisions in the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009,” 65(2) Food and Drug Law Journal, 231-245 (2010).

  • “Current Trends in U.S. Patent Litigation: How to Succeed in “Rocket Docket” Courts, the ITC, and Arbitration,” The International Comparative Legal Guide to: Patents 2011, Sep 13, 2010.

  •  “Healthcare statute signals major change for biosimilar products,” IAM Life Sciences 250, Apr 23, 2010.

  • American Conference Institute Conference on Paragraph IV Disputes, New York, N.Y., April 24-25, 2012 (spoke on forfeitures of 180-day exclusivity and pending legislation).

  • American Conference Institute Conference on Paragraph IV Disputes, New York, N.Y., May 3-4, 2011 (spoke on forfeitures of 180-day exclusivity).

  • Maximizing Pharmaceutical Patents Life Cycles Conference, New York, N.Y., October 6-7, 2010 (chaired panel discussion concerning the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act of 2009).

  • Maximizing Pharmaceutical Patents Life Cycles Conference, New York, N.Y. October 7-8, 2009 (spoke on patent provisions of House and Senate bills regarding biosimilar biological products).