Print PDF

Howard W. Levine
+1 202 408 4259
howard.levine@finnegan.com

901 New York Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001-4413

+1 202 408 4000
Fax +1 202 408 4400

Bar and Court Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • New York
  • Pennsylvania
  • U.S. District Court, District of Columbia
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Education

  • Georgetown University Law Center
    J.D., cum laude, 1993
  • Duke University
    B.A., Biology, cum laude, 1990

Howard W. Levine

Partner

Howard Levine's practice concentrates on patent litigation before the federal district courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, primarily in the areas of biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. Mr. Levine has extensive experience in cases arising from the filing of Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDA).

Over the last 20 years, Mr. Levine has represented both pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in technologies ranging from the inhibition of NF-κB to genetically engineered corn. Mr. Levine was involved in litigations between Eli Lilly, Genentech, and the Regents of the University of California regarding human insulin, the first biotechnology product to be marketed. Some of the products involved in the litigations for which Mr. Levine served as counsel include Humulin®, Humatrope®, Zantac®, Paxil®, Evista®, Xigris®, Cymbalta®, Gemzar®, and Differin®.

Mr. Levine has conducted all aspects of pre-trial, trial, and post-trial proceedings, including appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. Mr. Levine lectures on the subject matter of patent law, including such topics as the written description and the patentability of different crystalline forms of drug substances.

Highlights

  • Served as leader of the firm's biotechnology and pharmaceutical practice group, 2006-2010.
  • Eli Lilly and Co. v. Wockhardt Ltd. (S.D. Ind.). Successfully defended Eli Lilly's patent covering its Cymbalta® drug product in litigation against nine generic defendants.
  • Novozymes A/S v. DuPont Nutrition Biosciences (Fed. Cir.). Successfully represented DuPont in an appeal involving the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C § 112.
  • Ariad Pharmaceuticals v. Eli Lilly and Co. (D. Mass., Fed. Cir.). Successfully represented Eli Lilly before the panel and en banc court in an appeal involving the written description requirement under 35 U.S.C. §112.
  • Eli Lilly and Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA (Fed. Cir.). Successfully represented Eli Lilly in an appeal regarding extension of
    thirty-month regulatory stage.
  • Regents of the Univ. of California v. Eli Lilly and Co. (S.D. Ind., Fed. Cir.). Successfully represented Eli Lilly before district court and appeals court in a case relating to recombinant DNA used to make human insulin.
  • Monsanto Company v. Syngenta Seeds Inc. (D. Del., Fed. Cir.). Successfully obtained summary judgment, which was later affirmed by the Federal Circuit, on Syngenta's behalf in case relating to genetically engineered corn.
  • Accuscan Inc. v. Xerox Corp. (Fed. Cir.). Member of appellate team that successfully obtained the reversal of a multi-million dollar verdict against Xerox.

Professional Activities

  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • New York Intellectual Property Law Association
  • District of Columbia Bar (Intellectual Property Section)

Select Publications