An accomplished veteran patent litigator, Brian Coggio combines deep experience, imagination, and skill, representing life sciences companies in high-profile and complex patent-related disputes.

Brian helps clients preserve, protect, and maximize the value of their patents worldwide. With a particular focus on chemical, pharmaceutical, medical device, biosimilars, and biotechnology innovations, he excels in litigating infringement claims and favorably resolving other contentious patent-related disputes in and out of court.

Brian has successfully represented clients in high-stakes, game-changing patent matters before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, in U.S. District Courts and Courts of Appeal, and in cases before the U.S. International Trade Commission. He coordinates, asserts, and defends his clients’ patent-related actions around the globe, including in France, Germany, the United Kingdom, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, and the Netherlands.

Well-reasoned and articulate, Brian presents clear and compelling arguments, achieving winning results through early motions, at trial, and, when necessary, on appeal. Handling Hatch-Waxman Act cases for decades, he has a nuanced understanding of the Act, its history, and its application. As a result, he is exceptionally sought after to handle those cases. He is particularly experienced at resolving biosimilar disputes under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.

From an early DNA sequencing patent infringement win for Harvard Medical School to clarifying the law in big pharma drug cases, Brian has helped protect his clients’ most critical innovations. His cases have also included defeating an allegation of patent infringement, which enabled his client to market the drug Aredia to treat bone disorders. Pharmaceutical company clients also rely on Brian to conduct worldwide patent analysis and to prepare validity and infringement opinions on life sciences issues. Brian’s clients include iconic brands such as Hoffman-La Roche and Fresenius.

Brian speaks on patent-related topics throughout the U.S., Europe, Canada, and Japan. For more than 20 years, he has been teaching a patent litigation course at Fordham Law School and before that at New York Law School.

During college, Brian was a percussionist, playing in jazz and rock bands throughout Manhattan’s Greenwich Village, at weddings, and at school events. Now he enjoys reliving his youth by attending concerts, Broadway musicals, and the opera.


Brian 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.

Professional associations

  • New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association
  • New York Intellectual Property Law Association