John Adkisson is a principal in the Twin Cities office of Fish & Richardson and is an elected member of the firm’s Management Committee. Mr. Adkisson specializes in patent infringement litigation, with a special emphasis on pharmaceuticals, biosimilars, and medical devices. In his 20-plus years of practice, Mr. Adkisson has served as lead trial counsel in numerous patent infringement cases across the country. Over the past decade, Mr. Adkisson has focused his practice on high-stakes pharmaceutical cases, including representing clients in the rapidly-emerging field of biosimilar litigation. In addition to his work in district court, Mr. Adkisson has served as lead counsel in numerous post-grant proceedings before the United States Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).
Mr. Adkisson represents clients in a variety of technology areas, including molecular biology and polymer chemistry. In 2015, the National Law Journal profiled Mr. Adkisson’s longstanding successful work on behalf of 3M Company in an article linked here. In addition to his work in court, Mr. Adkisson also serves as the Managing Group Leader for the Firm’s 200-lawyer litigation group. For the last six years, Mr. Adkisson has been named as a Minnesota Super Lawyer, and in 2015-2019, he was selected for inclusion in Best Lawyers in America®.
J.D., University of Wisconsin, Madison 1996 Wisconsin Law Review cum laude
B.A., University of Nebraska 1993 cum laude
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
Memberships & Affiliations
Member of the American Bar Association Federal Circuit Bar Association American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Minnesota Intellectual Property Law Association
Named a 2018 “Attorney of the Year” by Minnesota Lawyer (Individual & Group Award Recipient) Named a 2018 “Life Sciences Star” by LMG Life Sciences Selected as a 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, and 2018 Super Lawyer Selected as a 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019 Best Lawyer
Speaker, January 2018 Fish & Richardson Webinar, “Biosimilars: A Year in Review” (with Tasha Francis and Jenny Shmuel)
Lecturer, 2017 Midwest IP Institute, “After TC Heartland: Venue Considerations for Practitioners.”
Speaker, Fish & Richardson Boston Seminar Series, August 9, 2017, “Biosimilars Litigation: A Midyear Review” (with Jenny Shmuel)
Lecturer, 2016 AIPLA Spring Meeting, “U.S. Patent Litigation Five Years After The America Invents Act”
Lecturer, 2014 Midwest Intellectual Property Institute, “Post Grant Challenges at the PTO: Process and Strategy” (with Dorothy Whelan)
“If You Snooze, Do You Lose Your Right To Sue?” National Law Journal, October 19, 1998. (with Ronald J. Schutz).
Janssen Biotech, Inc. v. Samsung Bioepis, Co., Ltd., (D.N.J.) Served as counsel for Samsung Bioepis against Janssen in case involving Renflexis, Samsung Bioepis’s biosimilar product to Remicade. Janssen dismissed all claims against Samsung Bioepis with prejudice in November 2017.
Gilead Sciences, Inc. v. AbbVie Inc., (D. Del.) Served as counsel for Gilead against AbbVie in case involving solid formulations of pharmaceutical products related to treatment of Hepatitis C. Case settled in 2016.
Athena Diagnostics Inc. v. Mayo Clinic (D. Mass.) Served as counsel for Mayo Clinic in patent case related to detection of autoimmune disorder in patients. Case dismissed in Mayo’s favor on all counts in August 2017.
Coherus BioSciences, Inc. v. AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd., IPR 2016-00172 (P.T.A.B.) Serving as counsel for Petitioner Coherus Biosciences in IPR proceedings related to patents covering AbbVie dosing regimens related to Humira. All claims invalidated in Final Written Decisions issued in May and June 2017, cases currently on appeal.
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 articles, “Twin Cities Lawyers Take On Most Bizarre Case of Their Lives in MIT v. ImClone Systems,” and “Twin Cities Lawyers Score in Boston.”
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.
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.
Arctic Cat v. Polaris and Polaris v. Arctic Cat (D. Minn.) Lead counsel for Arctic Cat on series of patent infringement cases and PTAB proceedings related to off-road vehicles. Argued and obtained successful PTAB rulings on behalf of Arctic Cat. Cases currently pending in the District of Minnesota.
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. Cases 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 United States Supreme Court in 2016.
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.
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.
“John Adkisson is very, very good. He’s unflappable in negotiations, he doesn’t bang his shoe on a podium, he comes across well and he’s persuasive to folks on the other side. He always takes a thoughtful approach, he’s not emotional, and he’ll say why if he disagrees.”