John D. Livingstone

パートナー

vCard

John D. Livingstone

パートナー

+1 404 653 6449 +1 404 653 6449
john.livingstone@finnegan.com john.livingstone@finnegan.com

271 17th Street, NW
Suite 1400
Atlanta, GA 30363-6209

vCard

Show John's work in

製薬、化学、バイオテクノロジー技術に関する米国地方裁判所特許訴訟を専門とする。訴訟経験は幅広く、これまで特許権者及び特許権侵害被疑者双方の側に立ち、特許侵害、企業秘密の不正利用、商標、著作権等あらゆる種類の訴訟を全ての訴訟段階で手掛けている。弊所東京オフィスのパートナーとして4年間日本に駐在していた。

国内外のクライアントに対する戦略的ポートフォリオ管理及び訴訟カウンセリングを提供し、M&Aやインライセンス契約の機会に伴う企業の特許ポートフォリオ評価も行っている。特許侵害訴訟準備として、特許侵害、有効性、執行可能性に関する鑑定書も作成。さらに、クライアントに対し将来の訴訟を見据えた、効果的な特許ポートフォリオの発展、出願上の具体的問題への対応、クレーム戦略に関するアドバイスを提供している。

重要な医薬品に関する世界規模の特許ポートフォリオの戦略的管理を実施。革新的製薬会社の代理人としてデューデリジェンスにおいて、ライセンス契約及び共同開発契約の締結又は有利な買収、また1000万ドル以上の買収を勝ち取る等の成功に導いている。

国内外で特許法に関する講義を定期的に行っており、法律および科学技術に関する多数の論文を執筆している。さらに、次のような国際プログラムで数多くの講演を行っている；AIPPI(国際知的財産保護協会)、シンガポール・ソウル；LexisNexis、深セン市；日本ライセンス協会、東京；JIPA(日本知的財産協会)、東京・大阪・四国；「Managing Intellectual Property」のラウンドテーブルディスカッション、東京。発表のトピックは、米国での訴訟戦略、ディスカバリー、グローバル規模でのフォーラム・ショピング、差し止め、日本と米国双方の自明性基準比較、幹細胞技術の特許性、効果的デューデリジェンス戦略、米国特許商標庁への出願を権利化まで効果的に導く方法、等多岐に渡る。

Managing Intellectual Property誌により、米国ジョージア州における “IP Star”に選出。また、Legal Media Group社のGuide to the World’s Leading Patent Law Practitioners で2016年以来米国特許弁護士ランキングの上位に入賞している。

Et Cetera

2012年米連邦巡回控訴裁判所法曹協会より「Pro Bono Leadership Award」が授与される。2010年、プロボノ活動への貢献で慈善教育基金よりその功績が認められる。
共著 "Time for Orange Book Audit: Declaratory Judgment Decision will Boost Generic Drug Challenges," Legal Times, Sept. 2007.
共著“Ovarian Steroids Modulate Responsiveness to Dopamine and Expression of G-Proteins in Lactotropes,” Neuroendocrinology, 1998.

実績

Successfully represented Nissei ASB in a patent infringement, breach of contract, tortious interference with business relations, and trade secret misappropriation litigation related to blow mold machines used to manufacture containers for consumer product packaging.

4:19-cv-00042, W.D. Mo., Judge Kays

Successfully represented Ajinomoto in an ITC investigation and IPR proceedings involving patents related to genetically modified organisms and the use thereof to make commercial quantities of tryptophan. The ITC’s final determination found the Ajinomoto patents not invalid and infringed, and the ITC issued limited exclusion and cease-and-desist orders barring CJ and other respondents from importing infringing products for sale in the United States. The PTAB denied institution of CJ’s petitions on both challenged patents.

337-TA-1005, ITC, Judges Bullock, Essex
IPR2017-01551, -01698, PTAB, Judges Franklin, Mitchell, Moore, Sawert, Yang

Successfully represented AstraZeneca in Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) litigation and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings against multiple generic challengers on its Onglyza® and Kombiglyze® XR pharmaceutical drug products. Patent validity upheld in both the district court and parallel IPR proceeding.

1:14-cv-00664, D. Del., Judge Sleet
IPR2015-01340, PTAB, Judges Elluru, Paulraj, Tierney

Successfully represented AstraZeneca and Shionogi against eight generic ANDA filers related to Crestor®. District court decision affirmed on appeal.

1:08-md-01949, D. Del., Judges Farnan, Stark
10-1460, -1461, -1462, -1463, -1464, -1465, -1466, -1467, -1468, -1469, -1470, -1471, -1472, -1473, Fed. Cir., Judges Mayer, Newman, Plager

Successfully represented Kissei and Allergan in district court Hatch-Waxman litigation related to Rapaflo® (silodosin) for benign prostatic hyperplasia.

1:17-cv-01161, D. Del., Judge Stark

Successfully represented Shionogi Pharmaceuticals in multiple ANDA challenges to Orange Book listed patents covering its Doribax® pharmaceutical product.

3:15-cv-00668, D.N.J., Judges Goodman, Sheridan
3:12-cv-07907, D.N.J., Judges Goodman, Hillman, Williams, Wolfson

Successfully led Kaken and Bausch Health Care in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, district court litigation, and Federal Circuit appeal related to patent covering Kaken and Bausch Health Care’s Jublia® (efinaconazole) product for the treatment of onychomycosis.

3:18-cv-13635, D.N.J., Judges Martinotti, Goodman
18-2232, Fed. Cir., Judges Newman, O'Malley, Taranto
IPR2017-00190, PTAB, Judges Mitchell, Franklin, Pollock
IPR2017-01429, PTAB, Judges Mitchell, Franklin, Pollock

Representing AstraZeneca in Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) litigation against Zydus on its Farxiga^® pharmaceutical drug product.

1:18-cv-00664, D. Del., Judge Andrews

Represented Ajinomoto in the Southern District of New York in litigation involving patents related to genetically modified organisms and the use thereof to make commercial quantities of tryptophan. The case settled following successful representation of Ajinomoto in related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, an ITC investigation, and a subsequent Federal Circuit appeal.

1:16-cv-03498, S.D.N.Y., Judges Gorenstein, Vyskocil
337-TA-1005, ITC, Judges Bullock, Essex
18-1590, -1629, Fed. Cir., Judges Dyk, Moore, Taranto
IPR2017-01551, -01698, PTAB, Judges Franklin, Mitchell, Moore, Sawert, Yang

Successfully represented AstraZeneca and Shionogi against Watson's attempt to market a 505(b)(2) version of Crestor®.

1:10-cv-00915, D. Del., Judge Stark

Represented Aventis in litigation relating to Lovenox®.

5:03-cv-00887, C.D. Cal., Judges Pfaelzer, Timlin, Abrams, Larson

Successfully represented TIMCAL, in a patent litigation involving a method for producing expanded graphite.

1:03-cv-04904, N.D. Ill., Judge Gottschall
1:04-mc-00038, N.D. Ohio, Judge Polster

Successfully represented Hewlett-Packard in trade secret misappropriation litigation related to very-long-instruction-word (compiler) technology.

C.A. No. 20069, Del. Ch., Judge Lamb

Leads district court litigation for Novartis against multiple generics related to KISQALI ®, a blockbuster, breakthrough CDK4/6-inhibitor for the treatment of breast cancer.

1:21-cv-00870, D. Del., Judge Hall

Led Novartis against Genzyme’s multiple patent infringement actions and inter partes review (IPR) proceedings related to recombinant adeno-associated virus vector technology used in Novartis’ blockbuster, breakthrough gene therapy Zolgensma®. The case settled after four patents were invalidated during claim construction, five patents found not literally infringed, and institution of multiple IPRs.

1:21-cv-01736, 1:23-cv-00554, D. Del., Judge Andrews

Represented AstraZeneca in Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) litigation against Zydus on its blockbuster Farxiga® pharmaceutical drug product. After a bench trial, Judge Andrews ruled that the defendant failed to prove that any of the patent claims at issue were invalid due to obviousness, resulting in a complete win for our client. That decision was not ultimately appealed.

1:18-cv-00664, D. Del., Judge Andrews

Lead counsel for Ajinomoto in the Southern District of New York in litigation involving patents related to genetically modified organisms and the use thereof to make commercial quantities of tryptophan. The case settled following successful representation of Ajinomoto in related inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, an ITC investigation, and a subsequent Federal Circuit appeal.

1:14-cv-00664, D. Del., Judge Sleet
IPR2015-01340, PTAB, Judges Elluru, Paulraj, Tierney

Insights

Articles

Implications of California's AB 824 Patent Settlement Regulation Implications of California's AB 824 Patent Settlement Regulation

May 21, 2025

Life Science Leader

Conference

2024 Corporate IP Institute 2024 Corporate IP Institute

October 29-30, 2024

Atlanta

Seminar

Basel: Life Sciences IP Seminar: Multijurisdictional Considerations for Protecting Your Most Valuable Assets Basel: Life Sciences IP Seminar: Multijurisdictional Considerations for Protecting Your Most Valuable Assets

May 16, 2024

Basel

Seminar

Copenhagen: Life Sciences IP Seminar: Multijurisdictional Considerations for Protecting Your Most Valuable Assets Copenhagen: Life Sciences IP Seminar: Multijurisdictional Considerations for Protecting Your Most Valuable Assets

May 14, 2024

Copenhagen

Webinar

Discovery in U.S. Patent Litigation & Managing its Potential Impact in Related Foreign Cases Discovery in U.S. Patent Litigation & Managing its Potential Impact in Related Foreign Cases

January 18, 2023

Webinar

Patent Infringement After Duncan Parking Technologies Patent Infringement After Duncan Parking Technologies

September 29, 2022

Webinar

Professional Recognition

“John Livingstone is a commanding advocate in Hatch-Waxman disputes, valued for pairing scientific confidence with courtroom authority at the highest level of complexity.

“‘John is an excellent litigator whose combination of legal and scientific expertise inspires conviction, and his deep understanding of the pharmaceutical industry makes him a trusted partner when handling important IP matters.’”

"John Livingstone brings an international outlook and inspires confidence in his clients as a skilled litigator, prudent counsellor and post-grant proceedings ace."

“The top name on the fight card locally is John Livingstone, who is also one of the firm’s best Hatch-Waxman Act litigators.”

“…comfortable in any forum, John Livingstone takes on the toughest life sciences and chemical cases with zeal. Having worked for several years in Finnegan’s Tokyo office, he has cultivated a strong following of Japanese innovators…”

“… John Livingstone [is] singled out by peers for [his] IP capabilities. Livingstone, former leader of the firm's biotechnology practice in Japan, runs a U.S. district court patent litigation practice that specializes in pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and biotechnology.”

“Atlanta's John Livingstone 'always has the best interest of his client in mind.’”

“One client lauded the work of John Livingstone, describing him as ‘a very smart and reliable attorney who shows a deep understanding of internal business documents.’”

“Livingstone’s practice primarily emphasizes U.S. district court litigation related to pharmaceutical, chemical, and biotechnology. Clients rave about the partner…”

“Litigator John Livingstone ‘always thinks what is best for his client,’ says a biotech contact.”

“John Livingstone and David Weingarten are other compelling advocates, particularly in the context of major pharmaceutical and biotechnology cases.”