Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
  • Overview
  • Experience
  • Insights
  • Recognition

About Brian

Mr. Coggio is of counsel to the New York office of Fish & Richardson P.C. 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 U.S. 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.

Teaching Positions

  • Adjunct Professor, Fordham Law School (1999-present)
  • Adjunct Professor, New York School of Law (1995-1998)

Publications

Speaking Engagements

Mr. Coggio 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.

Hoffman-La Roche. He is lead counsel for Roche in four Hatch-Waxman actions involving the drug XELODA® against Mylan, Teva, Roxanne, and Accord respectively. The cases are pending in the District Court of New Jersey.

Boehringer Ingelheim. In Novartis v. Ben Venue, a Hatch-Waxman action he was lead counsel representing Ben Venue, a subsidiary of Boehringer Ingelheim. He secured a summary judgment of non-infringement, later affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

Bristol-Myers Squibb. He was lead counsel representing Bristol-Myers in Zenith v. Bristol-Myers Squibb, a declaratory action judgment involving the pharmaceutical cefadroxil and related to the Hatch-Waxman Act. The case established the principle of infringement by in vivo conversion of a non-patented product into patented pharmaceutical after ingestion.

Alcon Laboratories. He was part of a team representing Alcon in two Hatch-Waxman actions involving drugs for intraocular administration. Both litigations were successfully resolved on summary judgment in Alcon’s favor.

Marion Merrill Dow. In Marion Merrill Dow v. Geneva and Marion Merrill Dow v. Par Pharmaceuticals, both Hatch-Waxman actions, he was lead counsel asserting infringement of the client’s patent covering a metabolite of the antihistamine terfenadine (Seldane®). In the course of both litigations, various motions for summary judgment of invalidity and/or non-infringement were overcome. He was also involved in related litigations in the Supreme Court of Germany and in the House of Lords.

Bruker Daltonics. In Extrel v. Bruker, he was retained to prosecute the appeal from a decision in which Bruker had been found liable for infringement. Sales of the alleged infringing product, FTICR mass spectrometers, were enjoined, and awards of increased damages and attorney fees had been entered. On appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed the finding of infringement and vacated the injunction and all monetary awards against the client.

Hoechst Marion Roussel. In actions before the International Trade Commission and various district courts, he was lead counsel and led a large team that asserted that methods of producing diltiazen (Cardizem© CD) used by various defendants infringed a patent licensed to Hoechst by Tanaka Seiaku. The lengthy trial before ITC involved examination and cross-examination of witnesses who spoke Japanese, Finnish, Italian, German, or Hebrew.

Hoffmann-La Roche. He was lead counsel for Roche in a patent infringement action instituted by Chiron involving the latter’s patents covering various aspects of the gene encoding the hepatitis C virus. In addition, he coordinated related litigations in the Netherlands, France, Germany, Switzerland, Italy and Japan. He and his team were instrumental in obtaining a favorable worldwide settlement of all the litigations.

Hewlett-Packard. In two district court trials and related appeals to the Federal Circuit in disputes between Hewlett-Packard and Bausch & Lomb involving X-Y plotters, he was part of a team that successfully represented Hewlett-Packard against accusations of patent infringement. Moreover, the team established willful infringement by Bausch & Lomb of Hewlett-Packard’s own patent. As a result, Hewlett-Packard recouped all attorney fees from its adversary.

Hoffmann-La Roche. Throughout his career, he has been counsel to Roche and its foreign subsidiaries, including Nippon Roche and Roche GmbH, in various patent infringement litigations in which Roche has asserted patents covering alpha interferon. Recently, he was involved in related worldwide litigation involving a modified form of interferon (pegylated interferon) marked by Roche as Pegysys®. Most recently, in ICN Pharmaceuticals v. Hoffmann-La Roche, he was lead counsel representing Roche in a Hatch-Waxman action involving the pharmaceutical product ribavirin. That litigation was eventually settled. He was also lead counsel to Roche in a multi-defendant litigation instituted by Housey Pharmaceuticals against numerous pharmaceutical companies involving so-called research tool patents. After a successful result at a Markman hearing, the patentee conceded both invalidity and non-infringement. The ruling was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

U.S. Biochemical. In Harvard Medical School and U.S. Biochemical v. Pharmacia, he was lead counsel representing plaintiffs in a patent infringement action asserting infringement of a patent covering T7 DNA polymerase used in DNA sequencing. The successful result included the entry of a worldwide license agreement.

Bruker Daltonics. He was lead counsel representing Bruker and Agilent in Finnigan v. Bruker before the International Trade Commission. After a three-week trial, the Administrative Trial Judge held for Bruker. This decision was affirmed by the full commission and by the Federal Circuit. He also coordinated related litigations in U.S. district court and in Germany and Switzerland.

American Cyanamid. In Ethicon v. American Cyanamid, he was part of a team that represented the defendant-patentee who sued Ethicon (a division of Johnson & Johnson) for infringement of a patent covering synthetic absorbable sutures. After 72 days of trial, the case was settled in favor of Cyanamid. He also coordinated related litigations in England, France, and Germany, all of which were successfully resolved.

National Starch. In a patent/trade secret litigation instituted by Air Products, he was lead counsel for National Starch in the trade secret action and defeated claims that the client had misappropriate 13 separate trade secrets.

  • “2013 Top Rated – AV® PreeminentTM,” Lawyers in Intellectual Property Law
  • Mr. Coggio presented on life sciences issues and the world, including the U.S., Japan, Great Britain, Germany, the Netherlands, France, Japan, and Switzerland
Focus Areas
Education

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


J.D. cum laude, Fordham University School of Law (1974) Editor, Fordham Law Review


B.S., Chemical Engineering, Manhattan College (1971)

Admissions
  • 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

What's trending with Brian

Filter by
News
March 31, 2022
Fish Attorneys Author IP Litigator Article, "Regenxbio v. Sarepta: Make Sure You’re Safely Within the Safe Harbor Before Using a 'Research Tool'"
Articles
Event
March 15th, 2022 | 8:00 am CET
European Summit on Pharma and Biotech Patent Litigation
Speaking Engagement
Sponsorship
Blog
January 19, 2022
REGENXBIO v. SAREPTA: Make Sure You’re Safely Within the Safe Harbor Before Using a “Research Tool”
Authors: Kelly Allenspach Del Dotto, Brian D. Coggio
Blog
June 4, 2021
Users of Research Tools Take Note
Author: Brian D. Coggio
Event
February 23rd, 2021 | 8:00 am CET
C5 13th Annual Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation in Europe
Speaking Engagement
Conference/Convention
Blog
August 5, 2020
Attorneys for Branded Companies Should Carefully Review ANDAs for Admissions Regarding Generic Infringement
Authors: Brian D. Coggio, Katie Ning
IP Litigation
Life Sciences
Blog
June 26, 2020
First Circuit Finds Device Patent Improperly Listed in the Orange Book
Authors: Kayleigh E. McGlynn, Brian D. Coggio
IP Litigation
Life Sciences
Event
July 21st, 2020 | 1:30 pm EDT
Webinar | Navigating to the Safe Harbor: What to Know in Advance
Webinar
Event
July 7th, 2020 | 1:30 pm EDT
Webinar | Antitrust Implications of Biologic Patent Settlements
Webinar
Blog
June 4, 2020
Generic Drug Labeling and Induced Patent Infringement
Authors: Karrie Wheatley, Ph.D., Brian D. Coggio, Geoffrey D. Biegler
IP Litigation
Life Sciences
Blog
May 21, 2020
Overview of Approaches to Compulsory Licensing
Authors: Cheryl Wang, Brian D. Coggio, Sushil Iyer, Ph.D.
Blogs
IP Law Essentials
Blog
May 12, 2020
Prodrugs – Federal Circuit Holds That A PTE Does Not Cover Their Metabolites
Author: Brian D. Coggio
IP Law Essentials
Life Sciences
load more topics
TOP