Irene Hudson is a Principal in the New York office of Fish & Richardson P.C. Ms. Hudson has a Bachelor of Science degree in Pharmacy and has extensive experience managing complex patent and trade secret cases day to day, from pre-suit investigation through trial, before various federal district courts and in many technological areas including chemistry, pharmaceuticals, biotech and medical devices. Ms. Hudson closely follows the law on e-discovery and has overseen complex e-discovery issues in several large matters.
Ms. Hudson also has experience with trademark and trade dress prosecution, licensing, and litigation. She has managed worldwide trademark portfolios and handled several trademark and trade dress litigations.
Ms. Hudson has been with the firm since 2001 when she was a Summer Associate, and is actively involved in the firm’s recruiting and diversity programs. She is also a consistent contributor to the firms Life Sciences Newsletter.
Roche Palo Alto LLC, Gilead Inc, et al. v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.: Hatch Waxman case regarding angina pharmaceutical product RANEXA(r) ranolazine. Pending.
Intelifuse Inc. v. Biomedical Enterprises Inc.: Patent infringement case concerning medical device for heating staples. Settled favorably.
Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Mylan Inc. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.
Hoffman-La Roche Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. and Boehringer Ingelheim Roxane, Inc.
Counsel on behalf of Hoffman-La Roche Inc. in a Hatch-Waxman patent litigation pertaining to the drug XELODA® (capecitabine) used in the treatment of metastatic colorectal and breast cancer.
Multimedia Patent Trust v. Microsoft Corp.: Represented Microsoft in a patent trial relating to video compression and other technologies. The case was tried to a jury verdict in June 2008 and the jury found no infringement of MPT’s video patent.
Enzo Biochem v. Molecular Probes Inc. et al.: Represented Molecular Probes in multi-patent and multi-defendant case involving molecular reagents and probes.
Lehman Brothers v. Deutsche Bank Securities, Inc., et al.: Represented Lehman Brothers in a trade secret, copyright, and unfair competition case involving misappropriation of Lehman’s fixed securities data. The case settled.
AirDefense, Inc. v. AirTight Networks, Inc.: Represented AirDefense in trade secrets case involving wireless network security systems and technologies. The case settled.
Immtech v. Neurochem: Represented Immtech in an ICC arbitration regarding missapropriation of trade secrets and breach of contract involving patent applications and compounds for treating Alzheimer’s disease.
D.J. Miller Music Distributors, Inc. v. Strauser et al.: Counsel on behalf of D.J. Miller Music Distributors in a trademark litigation under the Anticybersquatting Consumer Protection Act related to the use and registration of the domain name www.prosing.com.
Cartier v. Allied Marketing: Represented Allied Marketing in a trade dress infringement action relating to watches. Successfully defeated plaintiff’s preliminary injunction motion. The case settled.
Circle Line Sightseeing Yachts, Inc. v. Circle Line Statue of Liberty Ferry, Inc.: Represented Circle Line Statue of Liberty Ferry, Inc. in a trademark dispute concerning the famous CIRCLE LINE trademark. Case settled after full trial on the merits.
Wicked Fashions, Inc. v. Rocawear et al.: Represented Wicked Fashions in a trademark infringement action. Case settled with a consent injunction against defendants. Companion proceeding was filed in TTAB.
Philip Morris v. Cowboy Cigarettes: Represented Philip Morris in a trade dress infringement action regarding the famous Marlboro cowboy, which resulted in a finding of infringement on summary judgment.
Honda Motor Co. Ltd. v. Winkelmann (CIVIC vs. V.I.C, both for vehicles): Represented Registrant Honda. Case resolved on summary judgment in favor of Honda.
Surf Line v. Robert Charles White (JAMS vs. TOE JAMS, both for clothing): Represented Registrant Surf Line. Case resolved with a finding of likelihood of confusion after a hearing in favor of Surf Line.