Geoff Biegler manages and tries complex patent cases in jurisdictions spanning from the District of Delaware to the Southern District of California, including the U.S. International Trade Commission, on behalf of both plaintiffs and defendants. Mr. Biegler has also has experience in Patent Office proceedings, both in the US and in Europe including EPO Opposition Proceedings, US Patent Office Post Grant proceedings and interferences. In addition to his experience in U.S. jurisdictions, Mr. Biegler also has significant experience managing and harmonizing patent disputes that include fronts on multiple, international jurisdictions.
Mr. Biegler’s extensive experience in patent disputes involves a wide variety of technologies, including life sciences, pharmaceuticals, genomics, biotechnology, medical devices, and software, among others. Leveraging his background in biology and chemistry, Mr. Biegler has extensive experience litigating both Hatch-Waxman cases and competitor pharmaceutical and biotechnology cases. He is very knowledgeable regarding the generic regulatory framework and the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.
Mr. Biegler has received several accolades for his work, including being named a Rising Star by Super Lawyers Magazine. He is also active outside of the courtroom. Mr. Biegler has been involved in pro bono matters relating to domestic violence and indigent rights, including working with the Western Center on Law and Poverty to overhaul San Diego County’s General Relief program of indigent adults. He is also a member of several local organizations, including the J. Clifford Wallace Inn of Court.
Selected Cases Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. AbbVie, Inc. (D. Del.) – managed litigation for Gilead in competitor pharmaceutical litigation involving Gilead’s Hepatitis C treatment, HARVONI®. The litigation was resolved shortly before trial. Certain Sleep-Disordered Breathing Treatment Systems and Components Thereof (ITC) – trial counsel for complainant ResMed through Commission decision in case involving patent infringement by CPAP flow generator and mask products. Following the hearing, the Commission found a violation of Section 337. In re: BRCA1- and BRCA2- Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation (D. Utah): counsel for plaintiff Myriad Genetics in multi-district litigation involving patents related to the BRCA1 and BRCA2 genes. Hoffman-La Roche and Genentech v. Teva (D.N.J.): counsel for Roche and Genetech in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving XELODA® oral chemotherapy treatment. The litigation settled shortly before trial. NUTech Ventures v. Syngenta Seeds (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. 3M Innovative Properties Co. v. Avery Dennison (D. Minn.): counsel for 3M in patent and antitrust cases related to retroreflective sheeting used on highway road signs. Obtained successful Markman and summary judgment rulings on behalf of 3M. Cases settled in 2013. 3M Innovative Properties Co. v. DuPont (D. Minn.): counsel for 3M in patent infringement case related to ion-exchange based emulsifier technology for removing APFO during manufacturing process for Teflon®. Case settled after claim construction. In re: Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litigation (D. Del.) – represented Plaintiff Cephalon in multi-district Hatch-Waxman litigation involving Cephalon’s skeletal muscle relaxant drug product, AMRIX®. Following a bench trial, obtained a Federal Circuit decision finding that claims covering AMRIX® were not obvious. Maquet v. Terumo(N.D. Cal.) andIn the Matter of Certain Vein Harvesting Surgical Systems and Components Thereof (ITC): counsel for defendant Terumo in district court and ITC cases involving Terumo’s VirtuoSaph Endoscopic Vein Harvesting System. Both cases settled favorably. Sciele Pharma, Inc., et al v. Mylan Labs., et al (D. Del.): counsel for plaintiffs in Hatch-Waxman action over blood-pressure drug, SULAR®. Case successfully resolved upon patent expiration. MIT & Repligen v. ImClone Corp. (D.Mass.): counsel for plaintiffs in patent litigation over cell lines used to manufacture the late-stage colon cancer drug ERBITUX®. Case settled on morning of opening statements for $65 million.