Michael W. Johnson

Partner

New York
Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP
787 Seventh Avenue
New York, NY 10019-6099
T 212 728 8137
F 212 728 9137
mjohnson1willkie.com

Michael W. Johnson is a partner in the Intellectual Property Department.  Michael's practice focuses on litigation concerning patents, copyrights, and trade secrets.  His litigation experience encompasses an array of technologies, including pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices, industrial chemicals, and consumer products, with particular focus on pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.

Michael has represented a variety of major life sciences companies in litigation matters.  In the pharmaceutical field, he has played a significant role in litigations involving drug products including: bevacizumab (Avastin), trastuzumab (Herceptin), erythropoietin (Epogen), ertapenem (Invanz), cabazitaxel (Jevtana), naltrexone/bupropion (Contrave), paricalcitol (Zemplar), diclofenac (Cambia), lansoprazole (Prevacid Solutabs), valganciclovir (Valcyte), cefdinir (Omnicef), amlodipine besylate (Norvasc), and alendronate (Fosamax). In addition to his district court experience, Michael has prevailed in several appeals following trials and preliminary injunction decisions.

Michael’s practice also includes client counseling on patent infringement, validity, and enforceability, as well as intellectual property issues associated with transactional work including licensing and mergers.

+ Continue Reading

Highlights

Michael W. Johnson is a partner in the Intellectual Property Department.  Michael's practice focuses on litigation concerning patents, copyrights, and trade secrets.  His litigation experience encompasses an array of technologies, including pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices, industrial chemicals, and consumer products, with particular focus on pharmaceuticals and biotechnology.

Selected Significant Matters

  • Genentech v. Pfizer (bevacizumab) – Represented Pfizer in BPCIA litigation concerning their biosimilar to Avastin, which resulted in a settlement.
  • Pfizer v. Genentech – Represented Pfizer in an IPR Proceeding challenging Genentech's patent on recombinant antibody technology.
  • Genentech v. Pfizer (trastuzumab) – Represented Pfizer in BPCIA litigation concerning their biosimilar to Herceptin, which resulted in a settlement.
  • Amgen v. Hospira (erythropoietin) – Currently representing Hospira in one of the first litigations under the BPCIA regarding Epogen. Obtained appellate victory for Hospira in a case of first impression before the Federal Circuit involving the statutory framework for biologic drug products.
  • Hospira v. Genentech (bevacizumab) – Represented Hospira in successful IPR proceeding relating to a method of treatment using bevacizumab as well as the subsequent appeal, which resulted in an affirmance of the PTAB’s decision that all of the challenged claims were unpatentable.
  • Hospira v. Genentech – Represented Hospira in successful IPR proceeding related to a patent on Protein A affinity chromatography, which resulted in a decision that all of the challenged claims were unpatentable.
  • Takeda v. Array Biopharma – Represented Array in an IPR proceeding on Takeda’s compound patent as well as a subsequent appeal, which ultimately resulted in a favorable decision.
  • Merck v. Hospira (ertapenem) – Second-chair trial counsel representing Hospira in this patent litigation concerning patents related to Invanz. Court found Merck’s patent on the process for making ertapenem invalid as obvious.
  • Purdue v. Amneal (oxycontin) – Represented Amneal in the successful appeal of Hatch-Waxman action relating to obviousness of anti-abuse features of reformulated oxycontin.
  • Sanofi v. Actavis (cabazitaxel) – Represent Actavis in this patent litigation concerning Jevtana.
  • AbbVie v. Hospira (paricalcitol) – Second-chair trial counsel representing Hospira in this patent litigation concerning patents related to Zemplar. Court ruled that Hospira’s generic paricalcitol product does not infringe AbbVie’s U.S. patent.
  • Nautilus v. Wockhardt & Edict (diclofenac) – Represented a branded pharmaceutical company against two generic challengers on four patents related to novel formulations and methods of treatment for diclofenac.
  • Arkema v. Honeywell – Currently representing a chemical company in a declaratory judgment action seeking to invalidate patents directed to 1234yf, a hydrofluorocarbon used in automobile refrigeration.
  • Bloomberg v. Swatch – Represented Bloomberg L.P. in its fair use defense to claims brought by Swatch Ltd for copyright infringement.
  • Takeda v. Teva (lansoprazole) – Successfully represented Teva in the Federal Circuit on an appeal from a district court decision of non-infringement. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s decision one day after oral argument.
  • Abbott Labs. v. Teva (cefdinir) - Successfully defended Teva from a preliminary injunction motion. Successfully represented Teva in the appeal from the denial of the preliminary injunction motion.
  • Pfizer v. Synthon BV (amlodipine) - Successfully represented Synthon in a Federal Circuit appeal resulting in the patent being held invalid as obvious.
  • OSI Pharma., Pfizer & Genentech v. Teva (erlotinib) – Represented Teva in a patent litigation concerning three patents.

Selected Professional and Business Activities

Michael is a member of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association where he currently serves on the Legislative Action Committee and the Programs Committee.  Michael is also a member of the American Intellectual Property Association.

Publications / News / Events

+ View All Publications / News / Events