John Adkisson is a principal in the Twin Cities office of Fish & Richardson, specializing in patent infringement litigation, pharmaceutical litigation and trade secrets litigation. Mr. Adkisson successfully represents Fortune 500 clients and universities in patent jury trials and has successfully argued Markman hearings and dispositive motions for those clients. Mr. Adkisson has litigated cases in a variety of technology areas, including molecular biology, polymer chemistry, retroreflective optics and mechanical engineering issues related to off-road vehicles. Among Mr. Adkisson’s clients is 3M Company, for whom Mr. Adkisson has successfully litigated more than 20 patent and trademark cases since 2001. Mr. Adkisson served as trial counsel for Mayo Clinic in 2011, where he helped to obtain a jury verdict of willful trade secret misappropriation against a former Mayo researcher. Mr. Adkisson was also recently profiled in IP Law 360 in an article linked here.
3M Innovative Properties Co. v Avery Dennison Corp., (D. Minn.) Served as co-lead counsel for 3M in patent and antitrust cases related to retroreflective sheeting used on highway road signs. Argued and obtained successful Markman and summary judgment rulings on behalf of 3M. Case settled in 2013.
Halo LLC v. Pulse Engineering, Inc., (D. Nev.) Counsel for Halo LLC in patent case related to surface mount transformers used in electronics products. Case resulted in a jury verdict of willful infringement on Halo’s behalf in November 2012 in the District of Nevada, affirmed by the Federal Circuit in 2014.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology and Repligen Corp. v. ImClone Systems, Inc., (D. Mass.) Obtained $65 million settlement on morning of trial in September, 2007 in patent case in District of Massachusetts involving cancer drug Erbitux. Case reported in linked articles, “Twin Cities Lawyers Take On Most Bizarre Case of Their Lives in MIT v. ImClone Systems,” and “Twin Cities Lawyers Score in Boston.”
3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Avery Dennison Corp., (D. Minn.) Trial counsel for 3M in case tried to jury in Minneapolis in December, 2005. Jury returned verdict for 3M on all counts, permanent injunction granted in March, 2006.
Arctic Cat v. Polaris and Polaris v. Arctic Cat (D. Minn.) Counsel for Arctic Cat on series of patent infringement cases related to off-road vehicles. Cases pending in the District of Minnesota.
NUTech Ventures v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., (D. Neb.) Counsel for NUTech Ventures (associated with the University of Nebraska-Lincoln) in patent case related to genetically modified corn. Argued and obtained successful Markman ruing on behalf of NUTech. Case settled in 2014.
Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Ltd. v. Omthera Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals L.P. (D. Del.) Counsel for Amarin Pharmaceuticals in patent case involving cholesterol-lowering drugs.
TransWeb LLC v. 3M Innovative Properties Co., (D.N.J.) Counsel for 3M in patent and antitrust case related to plasma fluorinated filtration technology.
Auburn University v. IBM, (M.D. Ala.) Counsel for Auburn University in ongoing patent case related to semiconductor testing technology. Case currently pending in Middle District of Alabama.
3M v. DuPont (D. Minn.) Counsel for 3M in patent case related to environmentally-improved surfactants used in processing applications.
The Regents of the University of Michigan and Repligen Corp. v. Bristol Myers Squibb, (E.D. Tex.) Counsel for the University of Michigan and Repligen Corporation in patent case related to patent for method for treating rheumatoid arthritis.
Solvay Solexis, Inc. v. 3M Company et al. – (D.N.J.) Counsel for 3M in patent case related to low-temperature fluoroelastomeric products.
Dyneon LLC, et al v. Dupont Dow Elastomers – (D. Minn.) Counsel for Dyneon LLC in patent case related to polymer processing additives.
September 17, 2014
Fish & Richardson Announces 42 Attorneys Included in The Best Lawyers in America® 2015
April 27, 2011
Twin Cities Attorneys Win Jury Verdict in Trade Secrets Case
January 21, 2009
Fish settles patent case for Repligen
July 12, 2007
Fish Secures $65 Million Settlement for Repligen and MIT in Patent Lawsuit Against ImClone