John W. Bateman

John W. Bateman

John W. Bateman has nearly 20 years of experience litigating intellectual property disputes, including serving as lead counsel for Kenyon’s clients both at trial and on appeal. He has worked on a wide variety of matters, including ones concerning patents, trademarks, copyrights and trade secrets, and has practiced before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, numerous federal district courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. 

In recent years, Mr. Bateman’s litigation practice has focused on matters involving pharmaceutical products, medical devices and biotechnology, with a particular emphasis on representing generic companies in actions brought under the Hatch-Waxman Act. However, he has worked on matters involving a wide range of products, including electrical connectors, gasoline pumps, and drapery hooks. 

Mr. Bateman’s practice also involves rendering opinions on infringement and validity issues regarding generic pharmaceutical products. His years of experience with Hatch-Waxman cases help him develop arguments that are more likely to prevail in litigation. In addition, he is a United States contributing author for Pharmaceutical, Biotechnology, and Chemical Inventions: World Protection and Exploitation, which was published by Oxford University Press in February 2011.

Mr. Bateman also has extensive knowledge regarding section 337 investigations at the International Trade Commission. He has litigated a number of such cases, has served on the Executive Committee of the ITC Trial Lawyers Association, and is a co-author of Unfair Competition and the ITC, a handbook on section 337 practices and procedures. 

Representative Experience:

Pfizer, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.-Florida (D. Del.) (serving as lead counsel in pending Hatch-Waxman case involving Watson’s generic version of Rapamune® drug product)

Photocure ASA v. Kappos (E.D. Va. and Fed. Cir.) (served as lead counsel in case in which district court held in 2009 that Kenyon’s client Photocure was entitled to a Hatch-Waxman term extension on its patent covering its Metvixia® drug product, and in which Federal Circuit affirmed in 2010)

Duramed Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D.N.J.) (served as lead counsel in case involving generic version of Seasonale® oral contraceptive product made by Kenyon’s client Watson that settled favorably in 2010)

Alza Corp. v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, LLC (D. Del. and Fed. Cir.) (served as co-lead counsel at 2007 trial in Hatch-Waxman case in which district court held in 2009 that generic version of Concerta® drug product made by Kenyon’s client Andrx would not infringe Alza’s patent and that that patent was invalid, and in which Federal Circuit affirmed in 2010)

Calmedica LLC v. Best Vascular, Inc. (N.D. Ga.) (served as lead counsel in case in which district court issued claim construction ruling in 2008 that established that Kenyon’s client Best Vascular’s brachytherapy device did not infringe Calmedica’s patent, which led directly to Calmedica dropping the case)

Pfizer, Inc. v. Synthon Laboratories, Inc. (M.D.N.C.) (served as second chair at 2006 trial in Hatch-Waxman case involving generic version of Norvasc® drug product made by Kenyon’s client Synthon, in which Federal Circuit held in 2007 that Pfizer’s patent was invalid)

Cephalon, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D.N.J.) (served as lead counsel in Hatch-Waxman case involving generic version of Provigil drug product made by Kenyon’s client Teva that settled favorably in 2005)

FCI USA, Inc. v. Hon Hai Precision Co., Ltd. (N.D. Cal.) (served as second chair at 2004 trial, in which jury found that Hon Hai was liable for infringement of Kenyon client FCI’s patents involving electrical connectors, and awarded FCI about $8 million in damages, leading directly to a favorable settlement)

Novo Nordisk Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Bio-Technology General Corp. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D. Del. and Fed. Cir.) (gave opening statement and closing argument and examined witnesses at trial in 2003, and presented oral argument on appeal in 2004, in case involving human growth hormone product made by Kenyon’s clients BTG and Teva, in which district court held that Novo’s patent was invalid and unenforceable, and Federal Circuit affirmed)

Texas Instruments, Inc. v. Cypress Semiconductor Corp. (ITC and Fed. Cir.) (assisted at trial and on appeal in case in which Federal Circuit in 1993 affirmed the ITC's 1991 decision that Kenyon's clients, four American semiconductor companies, could continue to import integrated circuits that TI had alleged infringed its patent)