Christina Ji-Hye Yang

Successfully represented Bausch & Lomb and Eye Therapies in a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation and parallel PTAB challenges concerning an ANDA for generic versions of over-the-counter Lumify® ocular drops. The cases settled favorably for our clients.

Represented Truist Bank in a patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas against USAA, who asserted five patents directed to mobile deposit technologies. After asserting counterclaims on six patents and filing IPR petitions for each of USAA’s asserted patents, Finnegan’s strategy led to a favorable dismissal.

Successfully invalidated all five patents asserted against client Playtika in district court litigation over gaming technology. Also representing Playtika in related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and in a related appeal by NEXRF of Playtika’s district court victory.

Represented Syneron-Candela and MGH in patent infringement litigation concerning RF micro-needling technology.

Secured a decisive victory for client US Synthetic Corp. (USS) at the ITC. After a full hearing, the ALJ found that respondents infringed multiple claims of USS’s patent and that the claims were valid and supported by a domestic industry, but an initial Commission ruling under § 101 temporarily prevented a finding of violation of Section 337. The Federal Circuit reversed the § 101 ruling, and on remand the ITC found a violation and issued a limited exclusion order barring infringing polycrystalline diamond products from entry into the United States, securing final relief for USS.

Finnegan represented Bausch & Lomb’s licensee Eye Therapies, LLC in an appeal at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) decision finding Eye Therapies’ patent directed to a low-dose brimonidine treatment for eye redness (Lumify®) to be unpatentable. In a precedential decision, the Federal Circuit agreed with Finnegan’s arguments and found that the Board had wrongly invalidated the patent based on an incorrect claim construction, vacating and remanding the case back to the PTAB. The proceeding settled shortly thereafter