Patent Litigation Strategies Handbook, Fourth Edition With 2018 Cumulative Supplement

This comprehensive handbook gives practitioners insights on patent litigation from prelitigation considerations through post-grant patent practice. At every stage, the authors include specific, proven tactics for protecting clients’ interests. Experienced practitioners discuss and analyze the strategic reasoning behind every phase of patent infringement litigation, from initial client counseling through the Notice of Appeal.

Meet The Authors

William P. Atkins
Deborah E. Fishman
Gary M. Hoffman
Editor-in-Chief Emeritus


This invaluable treatise, in 35 chapters, breaks down strategic reasoning behind every phase of patent infringement litigation, from prelitigation issues and initial client counseling through the filing of the Notice of Appeal. The book explores the perspectives and strategies of both patent owners and patent challengers, providing updates on the most recent trends in patent litigation and winning strategies from some of the country’s leading attorneys.   

The Fourth Edition includes:

  • A new chapter devoted to biosimilars and biosimilar patent litigation, which considers the rapidly-evolving case law regarding litigation under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BCPIA) of 2009
  • An expanded chapter on biotechnology patent litigation
  • A revamped chapter on Hatch-Waxman litigation from the perspective of pioneer pharmaceutical companies
  • A thoroughly revised chapter on practice before the Patent Trials and Appeals Board (PTAB) and practical recommendations on the use of PTAB proceedings ad an adjunct or alternative to patent infringement litigation
  • Updates reflecting the new changes to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure effective on December 1, 2015 and the impact that those changes will have on practice 
  • Significant changes to the Judge’s Viewpoint chapter to provide an interesting perspective on these new developments
  • And much more 

Supplement Information


The 2018 Cumulative Supplement adds  new discussions including the following:


  • Discussions of case law in federal courts applying TC Heartland to motions alleging improper venue, defining the scope of “acts of infringement” and “a regular and established place of business”; in In re BigCommerce, Inc., the Federal Circuit clarified that venue is proper “in only one particular judicial district in the state”; and in In re Cray Inc. the Federal Circuit identified three general requirements for a party to have a “regular and established place of business” in a judicial district

  • Supreme Court rulings on the PTAB in Oil States Energy Services, LLC v. Greene’s Energy Group, LLC, holding that IPR proceedings do not violate Article III of the U.S. Constitution, and in SAS Institute, Inc. v. Iancu rejecting the PTAB’s “partial institution” practice

  • A new section explaining the latest in arbitration in PTAB proceedings

  • At the intersection of antitrust and patent law and following Actavis, the Third Circuit concluded that the federal district court improperly exercised federal jurisdiction based solely on a counterclaim that turns on federal law in In re Lipitor Antitrust Litig.

  • On remand in Amgen Inc. v Sandoz Inc., the Federal Circuit held that BPCIA preempted state law claims under both “field” and “conflict” preemption

  • Providing some much-needed guidance, the Federal Circuit in Vanda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. West-Ward Pharmaceuticals Int’l Ltd. held that claims were patent eligible because they “are directed to a specific method of treatment for specific patients using a specific compound at specific doses to achieve a specific outcome,” in contrast to the claims in Mayo, which were directed to the natural relationship itself, and USPTO issued guidance adopting the Federal Circuit’s Vanda opinion

  • In Amgen v. Sanofi/Regeneron, the Federal Circuit rejected the so-called “newly characterized antigen” test, because permitting patentees to claim antibodies by describing something that is not the invention (the antigen) would effectively dispense with the requirement that a patentee provide a “written description of the invention”; in view of Amgen, the USPTO issued guidance in February 2018 stating that “adequate written description of a newly characterized antigen alone should not be considered adequate written description of a claimed antibody to that newly characterized antigen, even when the preparation of such an antibody is routine and conventional”

  • In Krausz Indus. Ltd. v. Smith-Blair, Inc., the Eastern District of North Carolina extended waiver of  attorney client privilege and work product to post-litigation communications and work product in light of an allegation of ongoing willful infringement under the theory that neither Halo nor In re Seagate precluded an extended waiver

  • New sections in the chapter on document discovery on local patent rule discovery requirements and on potential e-discovery issues created by the new EU GDPR law

  • In a state court action involving an allegation of breach of contract in In re Andrew Silver, the Texas Supreme Court recognized that a party was entitled to claim privilege over emails to his patent agent

  • In Regeneron Pharms., Inc. v. Merus N.V., the Federal Circuit held that the district court did not abuse its discretion when it sanctioned Regeneron by drawing an adverse inference for widespread discovery misconduct throughout the litigation

  • Two Federal Circuit opinions issued on the same day addressed attorney’s fees in exceptional cases –Checkpoint Sys. v. All-Tag Sec. S.A. reversing the lower court’s grant of attorney’s fees, and Rothschild Connected Devices Innovations, LLC v. Guardian Prot. Servs. reversing and remanding the lower court’s denial of attorney’s fees

  • New topics in the chapter on Motion Practice on, venue motion practice after TC Heartland and on patentable subject matter motion practice after Alice

  • The Federal Circuit held in Berkheimer v. HP Inc. that the question of whether a claim element or combination of elements is well-understood, routine and conventional to a skilled artisan in the relevant field under Alice step-two is a question of fact

  • On remand, the federal district court in Halo held that Halo was not entitled to recover enhanced damages

  • In . v. Automated Creel Systems Inc., the Federal Circuit held that proposed grounds that were not instituted for trial because of redundancy are not subject to estoppel in either the Patent Office or the district courts

  • The Federal Circuit clarified in Exmark Man. Co. v. Briggs & Stratton Power Prods. that apportionment of the royalty base is unnecessary when the asserted claim covers the entire infringing product and even when the asserted claim recites both novel and conventional features

  • On remand from the Supreme Court, in Apple Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co., the federal district court in California set forth a four-factor test for identifying the relevant article of manufacture at the first step of the Section 289 damages inquiry

  • Discussion of key PTAB cases in 2017-2018, and there have been quite a few, especially those designated as important



Summary of Contents


Part I. The Opening Moves


Part II. Discovery


Part III. Motion Practice


Part IV. The Trial Presentation


Part V. After the Trial


Table of Cases


Table of Statutes, Regulations, and Rules






think and code authors and editors are practicing professionals with insider perspectives and real-life experience. Learn more about this book’s authors and editors. 
  is a partner in the Intellectual Property Group of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Tysons Corner, VA.
  is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group of Kaye Scholer, LLP, Palo Alto, CA.
 is a senior counsel in the Intellectual Property Group of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP, Washington, DC.


View full tables of contents, preface or about the Editors-in-Chief.
Buy Gonadorelin online