Search Team

Search by Last Name


Mr. Coggio is Of Counsel to the New York office of Fish & Richardson. He has extensive law firm experience as a senior trial attorney and counselor and has litigated disputes across a wide range of technologies with a particular focus in chemical, pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology. He has also been involved in cases before the International Trade Commission and in various foreign countries including Germany, Great Britain, Switzerland, Italy, and the Netherlands. In addition, Mr. Coggio has also represented clients in numerous cases under the Hatch-Waxman Act and has written and lectured extensively on this and related topics in this country, Europe, Canada and Japan. He is presently an adjunct professor at Fordham Law School and before that, at New York Law school, where he teaches a course in patent litigation.


New York University School of Law 1980
Trade Regulations, LL.M.

Fordham University School of Law 1974
Editor, Fordham Law Review
cum laude

Manhattan College 1971
Chemical Engineering, B.S.


  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 1975
  • New York 1975
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York

Other Distinctions

Recognized as a 2013 Top Rated – AV® PreeminentTM Lawyers in Intellectual Property Law.

Adjunct Professor, Fordham Law School (1999-present)

Adjunct Professor, New York School of Law (1995-1998)


“Biologics & Biosimilars:  Innovator Versus Competitor,” Panelist, C5’s 10th Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation Conference (February 27, 2018)

“Litigating Biosimilars,” Presenter, C5’s Life Sciences IP Summit (October 11, 2017)

Understanding the U.S. Safe Harbor, and Regulatory and Research Safe Harbors in the EU/Canada” Co-Presenter, Fish Litigation Webinar, (January 19, 2017)


He consults various pharmaceutical companies on aspects of the Hatch-Waxman Act and prepares validity and infringement opinions on life sciences issues. For example, most recently, he was in charge of a worldwide patent analysis of hundreds of medical device patents dealing with drug delivery systems.

Representative Publications

“Biosimilars: Comparison between Canada, US and Europe,” co-author, Smart & Biggar’s “Rx IP Update” (November 2019).

“Ensnarement Defense To Doctrine of Equivalents Succeeds On Summary Judgment,” author, Fish Litigation Blog (November 22, 2019).

The Doctrine of Equivalents and Its Limitations, Including ‘Ensnarement,’ a Particularly Potent Defense,” co-author, IP Litigator (September/October 2019).

“California Court Confirms that Venue Does Not Require a Nexus Between an ‘Act of Infringement’ and a ‘Regular and Established Place of Business,’” Fish Litigation Blog (September 19, 2019).

A District Court Split on Hatch-Waxman Venue Determinations,” co-author, Law360 (August 30, 2019).

Venue in Hatch-Waxman Actions is Governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) Not § 1391(b),” co-author, Fish Litigation Blog (May 3, 2019).

“Court Confirms ‘Unique’ Pleading Requirements in Hatch-Waxman Actions,” co-author, Fish Litigation Blog (April 12, 2019).

“Who can be a Defendant in Biosimilar Patent Litigation?” co-author, Law360 (April 11, 2019).

“Comparison of the Hatch-Waxman Act and the BPCIA,” Fish Life Sciences (March 2019).

Litigation-Related Issues Under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act,” co-authored chapter with Dr. Tasha Francis and Ron Vogel, in Gutka H., Yang H., Kakar S. (eds) Biosimilars. AAPS Advances in the Pharmaceutical Sciences Series, vol 34. Springer, (January 2019).

Canada’s New Linkage Litigation Scheme: A Comparison to Hatch-Waxman,” contributor, Smart & Biggar (January 2019).

Should Stockpiling Be Protected by the Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor?” co-author, Fish Litigation Blog (September 11, 2018).

Ensnarement — A 2nd Bite At The Noninfringement Apple,” co-author, Law360 (August 15, 2018).

Searching For ‘Act Of Infringement’ Under Hatch-Waxman,” co-author, Law360 (March 6, 2018).

Canada’s New Linkage Litigation Scheme: A Comparison to Hatch-Waxman,” co-authored with Nancy Pei, Lexology (December 1, 2017).

U.S. Supreme Court Provides Limited Guidance Regarding Biosimilar Patent Litigation,” co-authored with Tasha Francis, 16 BioScience Law Review, 153 (2017).

The Unclear Scope Of ‘All Patent Rights’ In Patent Exhaustion,” Law360 (September 27, 2017).

A Review Of Willfulness Findings In Hatch-Waxman Actions,” co-author, Law360 (September 19, 2017).

Has Amgen Already Won Its BPCIA Dispute With Sandoz?” co-author, Law360, (August 2, 2017).

Reviving ‘Regular And Established Place Of Biz’ Case Law,” co-author, Law360, (June 13, 2017).

Safe Harbor in the United States and Europe, co-author, Pharmaceutical Law & Industry Report, 14 PLIR 47 (December 2, 2016).

Can Reference Product Sponsor Forfeit Right To Sue Under BPCIA?Law360 (July 25, 2016).

“What the Court Got Wrong About Hatch-Waxman in Alcon” co-author, Law360 (February 1, 2016).

“Fed. Cir. Limits Safe Harbor for Post-Approval Conduct,” Law360 (November 17, 2015).

“Safe Harbor Protects Supplier of Active Ingredient for ANDA,” co-author, Law360 (September 29, 2015).

“Process Patents Are Vital In Biotech — Why Not Extend Them?” co-authored with Peter Ludwig, Law360 (August 10, 2015).

“Hatch-Waxman Action: Who Do You (Can You) Sue?,” Pharmaceutical Compliance Montior (June 3, 2015).

Commil v. Cisco – Who Really Won?” IP Law360 (June 2, 2015).

“Personal Jurisdiction in Hatch-Waxman Actions in view of Daimler,” Pharmaceutical Compliance Monitor (June 1, 2015).

Post-Approval Conduct and the Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor,” Pharmaceutical Compliance Monitor (April 1, 2015).

“The Trouble with Commil is DSU,” Law360 (January 29, 2015).

“Inter Partes Review by Hatch-Waxman Competitors Will Likely Increase Because of the Effect of IPR Decisions on the 30-Month Stay,” BioTechnology Rept. Vol 33, No. 6:249-51 (December 2014).

Is Stockpiling Protected By Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor?,” Law360 (November 21, 2014)

“Drug Labels Can Provide Specific Intent for Inducement,” IP Law 360 (October 3, 2014), cited in the Brief for the United States as Amicus Curiae supporting the Petition for Certiorari, in Commil USA, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Nos. 13-896 and 13-1044.

“IPR’s and the Hatch-Waxman 30-Month Stay of FDA Approval” Fish Litigation Blog (August 12, 2014).

“A Common Sense Discussion of Patenting Medical Diagnostics,” Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News (April 15, 2014).

“In Vivo Conversion as Inducement to Infringe,” Pharmaceutical Compliance Monitor (February 14, 2014).

“Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor Expansion continues,” Fish Litigation Blog (February 12, 2014).

“Research Tools and the Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor,” 22 Biotechnology Law Report 1 (November 1, 2014).

“License to Infringe on Research Tool Patents,” 33 Genetic Engineering & Biotechnology News 10 (October 1, 2013).

“The Patentability of Drug Enantiomers,” 190 N.J.L.J. 51 (October 1, 2007)

“Scope of the Safe Harbor Exemption of the Hatch-Waxman Act After Merck v. Integra Lifesciences,” 15 Fordham Intellectual Prop. L.J. (2005)

“Overview of Patent Litigation,” 11(1) IP Litigator 1 (2005)

“‘CREATE’ Act of 2004 Extends ‘Safe Harbor’ Aspects of Patent Laws,” N.Y.L.J. 4 (February 3, 2005).

“The Right to a Jury Trial in Actions for Patent Infringement and Suits for Declaratory Judgment,” 13 Fordham Intellectual Prop. L.J. 205 (2002), reprinted as Chapter 21, “Survey of Developments of Intellectual Property and Technology Law” (WebCredenza, Inc. 2004)

“New Horizons in Patent Litigation: Discovering Electronic Information,” N.Y.L.J. S4 (October 12, 2004).

“Recent Federal Circuit Decisions of Significance to Biotech/Pharmaceutical Practitioners”, appearing in “Biotechnology & Pharmaceutical Law 2004″ (Practising Law Institute, October 2004)

“Electronic Discovery: Where We Are and Where We are Headed,” 16 Int’l Prop. & Tech. L.J. 16 (March 2004).

“Recent Developments Regarding The Hatch-Waxman Act,” N.Y.L.J. S2 (January 26, 2004).

“Can the Seventh Amendment Ever Require That the Defense of Inequitable Conduct be Presented to a Jury?,” 9 (7) IP Litigator 1 (2003).

“The Period of Liability for Patent Infringement,” 10(7) IP Today 36 (2003).

“Overview Of Patent Litigation” appearing in “What Every Litigator Must Know About Intellectual Property 2003″ (Practising Law Institute, July 2003), updated July 2004

Contributor: “Patent Disputes: Litigation Forms and Analysis,” Battersby & Grimes (Aspen Pub. 2003)

Contributor: “Trademark & Copyright Disputes: Litigation Forms and Analysis,” Battersby & Grimes (Aspen Pub. 2003)

“Disqualification of Opinion Counsel as Trial Counsel When an Advice of Counsel Defense is Asserted,” 9(2) IP Litigator 11 (2003)

Integra Life Sciences I Ltd. v. Merck KGaA: Exemptions For Research Tool Patents,” 9(3) IP Strategist 6 (2002)

“Court is Taking a Dim View of Best-Mode Defense,” 25(12) Nat’l L.J., Sec. C. (November 11, 2002).

“The Safe Harbor Provision of the Hatch – Waxman Act: Present Scope, New Possibilities, and International Considerations,” 57 Food Drug L.J. 161 (2002).

“The Right to a Jury Trial Under the Waxman-Hatch Act – The Question Revisited and Resolved,” 57 Food Drug L. J. 1 (2002).

“The Identification and Selection of Expert Witnesses,” 6(3) IP Litigator 1 (2000).

“Adequate Notice: The Key to Obtaining Pre-Suit Damages in Patent Infringement Actions,” 6(2) Met. Corp. Counsel 20 (1998).

“Arbitration of Patent Infringement Disputes,” 6(3) Metropolitan Corp. Counsel 13 (1998).

“Avoiding Patent Infringement During the Drug Approval Process,” N.Y.L.J. S4 (March 9, 1998).

“The Application of the Patent Laws to the Drug Approval Process,” 52 Food Drug L.J. 345 (1997).

“The Right to a Jury Trial in Actions Under the Hatch-Waxman Act,” 52 Food Drug L.J. 259 (1997).

“Developing Pharmaceutical Products Without Fear of Patent Infringement,” 5(6) Met. Corp. Counsel (1997).

“Are Clinical Trials Conducted to Obtain FDA Approval Fatal to Patent Validity?” 5(4) Met. Corp. Counsel (1997).

“The Utilization of U.S. Patents to Prevent the Importation and Sale of Gray Goods,” 83 Trademark Rptr. 481 (1993).

“The Exercise of Patent Rights Through Multiple Exclusive Field-of-Use Licensing,” 4 Rutgers Comp. & Tech. L.J. 383 (1985).

“History and Present Status of Gray Goods,” 75 Trademark Rptr. 433 (1985), reprinted in Hawk, B., United States, Common Market and International Antitrust: A Comparative Guide (Prentiss Hall 1986).

Mr. Coggio presented on life sciences issues and the world, including the U.S., Japan, Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Japan, and Switzerland.


view all

What's trending with Brian

Filter by
February 24th, 2020
C5's Annual Pharma and Biotech Patent Litigation Conference
Speaking Engagement
Fish Litigation Blog
November 22, 2019
Ensnarement Defense To Doctrine of Equivalents Succeeds On Summary Judgment
Author: Brian D. Coggio
IP Litigation
Life Sciences
December 3rd, 2019 | 9:00 am CET
C5 Global Summit on Biosimilars
Speaking Engagement
October 29, 2019
Brian Coggio Co-Authors Article in IP Litigator, “The Doctrine of Equivalents and Its Limitations, Including 'Ensnarement,' a Particularly Potent Defense"
October 14th, 2019 | 2:00 am EDT
C5 Life Sciences IP Summit 2019
Speaking Engagement
Fish Litigation Blog
September 19, 2019
California Court Confirms that Venue Does Not Require a Nexus Between an “Act of Infringement” and a “Regular and Established Place of Business”
Author: Brian D. Coggio
IP Litigation
September 3, 2019
Brian Coggio Authors Article in Law360, “A District Court Split On Hatch-Waxman Venue Determinations”
June 18th, 2019
IPO Chat Channel Webinar
Speaking Engagement
Fish Litigation Blog
May 3, 2019
Venue in Hatch-Waxman Actions is Governed by 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b) Not § 1391(b)
Author: Brian D. Coggio
IP Litigation
Life Sciences
April 25th, 2019
2019 Fordham IP Conference
Speaking Engagement
January 19th, 2017 | 1:00 pm EST
Understanding the US Safe Harbor, and Regulatory and Research Safe Harbors in the EU/Canada
December 15th, 2016 | 1:00 pm EST
Webinar | Minimizing Willful Infringement Post-Halo
load more topics