Christy Lea

Edwards Lifesciences v. Abbott Laboratories (C.D. Cal. 2020)

Represented Edwards Lifesciences in asserting three patents against Abbott’s transcatheter mitral clipping device (MitraClip) for repairing the mitral heart valve. The parties ultimately reached a global settlement of this worldwide dispute.

Boston Scientific v. Edwards Lifesciences (C.D. Cal. 2019)

Defended Edwards Lifesciences in patent case involving eight patents asserted against delivery systems and crimpers used for implanting Edwards’ transcatheter heart valves. After filing IPR petitions against the patents, the Court stayed the case pending the final disposition of all IPRs, and the parties ultimately reached a settlement of their global dispute.

Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. ConforMIS, Inc., IPR2016-01874 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd. 2018)

Lead counsel for Smith & Nephew in inter partes review (IPR) trial before the PTAB, in which we successfully obtained a final written decision of unpatentability of all the challenged claims in ConforMIS’ foundational patent involving patient-specific instruments for knee replacement surgery.

CardiAQ Valve Technologies v. Neovasc  (Fed. Circ. 2017) 

Successfully defended appeal of $112M judgment in trade secret misappropriation case.

CardiAQ Valve Technologies v. Neovasc (D. Mass. 2016), aff’d (Fed. Cir. 2017)

In jury trial, represented CardiAQ in trade secret misappropriation case relating to the first transcatheter mitral valve replacement (“TMVI” or “TMVR”) device to be placed in a human. The jury found that Neovasc misappropriated CardiAQ’s trade secrets and awarded CardiAQ $70 million. The district court enhanced damages by $21 million and awarded prejudgment interest, which increased the final judgment to over $110 million. The National Law Journal listed this case as the Number 6 IP and Number 21 overall verdict of 2016.

iCeutica Pty Ltd. and Iroko Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01515 (2017).

Represented the Lupin defendants in a patent infringement action in the District of Delaware on patents relating to diclofenac acid (the active ingredient in Iroko’s Zorvolex® product). Achieved favorable case-dispositive settlement for client.

Tried trade secret misappropriation case relating to medical device technology, resulting in $70M jury verdict. Plaintiff designed transcatheter mitral valve replacement device that was first ever to be placed in humans. Plaintiff hired Defendant to help assemble prototypes under an NDA. Defendant’s lead engineer began designing a directly competing device while working on Plaintiff’s prototypes, but decided not to tell Plaintiff as their relationship continued for six more months, during which Plaintiff shared numerous confidential designs. The court found Defendant’s misappropriation willful and further awarded Plaintiff $21M in enhanced damages, and over $20M in interest for a total judgment of $112M. In September 2017, the judgment was affirmed entirely, and has since been satisfied.

Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Rea & Synthes (U.S.A.) (Fed. Cir. 2013). 

Successfully represented Smith & Nephew before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a case involving reexamination of a patent relating to orthopedic bone plates. In a precedential opinion, the Court ruled that a patent owned by Smith & Nephew competitor, Synthes (U.S.A.), on an orthopedic bone plate is invalid. The Federal Circuit’s opinion reversed an earlier decision by the Patent Office, which had upheld many of the patent claims.

GlaxoSmithKline v. Anchen Pharmaceuticals et al., Case No. 11-046 (RGA) (MPT) (2011). 

Represented the Anchen defendants in patent infringement action in the District of Delaware on a patent relating to pharmaceutical compositions of dutasteride (the active ingredient in GSK’s Avodart® product) and a combination of dutasteride and tamsulosin (the active ingredients in GSK’s Jalyn® product). Achieved favorable case-dispositive settlement for client.

Lupin Atlantis Holdings S.A. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd. et al., 2:11-cv-03851 (2011). 

Represented defendants in patent infringement action in the Southern District of New York on two patents relating to pharmaceutical compositions of fenofibrate (the active ingredient in Lupin’s Antara® product). Achieved favorable case-dispositive settlement for client.

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (W.D Tex. 2010). Scored major patent litigation victory for Smith & Nephew in a case involving patents relating to negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). In a 37-page ruling, Judge Furgeson granted JMOL of invalidity due to obviousness based on the many early uses of NPWT Smith & Nephew presented at an earlier jury trial.

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (W.D Tex. 2009). 

Successfully represented Smith & Nephew in opposing motion for preliminary injunction based on alleged infringement of patents relating to negative pressure wound therapy.

Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Ranbaxy Labs., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90804 (D.N.J. 2009). 

Successfully represented Ranbaxy in obtaining district court judgment that patent relating to valganciclovir hydrochloride is not infringed.

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. BlueSky Medical Group, Inc. 554 F.3d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2009). 

Successfully represented BlueSky in upholding jury verdict that gauze-based system for negative pressure wound therapy does not infringe patents.

Successfully represented Smith & Nephew in moving to transfer this patent infringement action out of the Eastern District of Texas.

Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. United States Surgical Corp, 2006 WL 163187 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Successfully represented Applied Medical in upholding jury verdict of $43.5 million and finding that Tyco-Unit U.S. Surgical had willfully infringed patent and district court’s enhancement and entry of the $64.5 million judgment.

Successfully represented Beckman in upholding district court judgment that patent relating to electrophoresis is invalid as a matter of law for obviousness.

Koepnick Medical & Educ. Research Found., L.L.C. v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 347 F. Supp. 2d 731 (D. Ariz. 2004). 

Obtained favorable claim construction and summary judgment of non-infringement for Bausch & Lomb, Inc. in patent litigation involving LASIK eye surgery. Decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.