Ryan Johnson focuses his practice on complex intellectual property litigation. He has extensive experience trying pharmaceutical patent infringement cases arising under the Hatch-Waxman Act and representing both patent owners and petitioners in post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He also represents pharmaceutical companies in antitrust actions arising out of prior patent cases.
Ryan has represented clients in the consumer products, telecommunications and high-tech industries in patent infringement matters. He also advises clients on the intellectual property-related aspects of acquisitions and other transactions.
Before attending law school, he researched experimental recombinant DNA vaccines for the HIV virus. He also spent several years working for a leading consumer products company as a product formulator and process development engineer.
Prior to joining Fenwick & West, Ryan worked at a leading international law firm where he was a partner in the litigation group.
- Represented Pfizer as Petitioner in an inter partes review concerning methods of treating lymphoma using monoclonal antibodies and chemotherapy. The PTAB cancelled all challenged claims as unpatentable over the prior art. Pfizer v. Biogen, IPR2017-01168, Paper No. 59 (PTAB Oct. 31, 2018).
- Represented Novo Nordisk in an inter partes review concerning methods of nanofiltering recombinant therapeutic proteins. The PTAB upheld all challenged claims in Novo Nordisk's patent. Laboratoire Francais du Fractionnement et des Biotechnologies v. Novo Nordisk, IPR2017-00028, Paper No. 53 (PTAB April 5, 2018).
- Represented Pfizer and UCB Pharma at trial in a patent infringement case against five generic manufacturers concerning Toviaz®. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware ruled in our clients' favor on all issues. Pfizer v. Sandoz, No. 13-1110-GMS, 2016 WL 1611377 (D. Del. Apr. 20, 2016).
- Represented Pfizer and UCB Pharma in a second patent infringement trial concerning Toviaz®. At the close of evidence, the Court issued a general verdict from the bench in favor of our clients all issues. Pfizer v. Mylan Pharms., No. 15-79-GMS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125634 (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2017).
- Represented UCB Pharma in five IPR proceedings concerning patents covering the drug Toviaz. The PTAB upheld all challenged claims in all five UCB patents. Mylan Pharm. v. UCB Pharma, IPR2016-00510, Paper 45; IPR2016-00512, Paper 37; IPR2016-00514, Paper 38; IPR2016-00516, Paper 37; IPR2016-00517, Paper 37 (PTAB July 19, 2017).
- Represented Pfizer at trial in a patent infringement case against eight generic manufacturers concerning Lyrica®. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware ruled in Pfizer's favor on all issues. Pfizer v. Teva Pharms. USA, 882 F. Supp. 2d 643 (D. Del. 2012), aff'd 555 Fed. Appx. 961 (2014).
- Represented Pfizer at trial in a patent infringement case concerning Detrol® and Detrol® LA. The U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled in Pfizer's favor on all issues. Pfizer v. IVAX Pharms., 2010 WL 339042 (D.N.J. Jan. 20, 2010).
- Represented Pfizer in a series of cases concerning controlled release formulation patents covering Detrol® LA. The cases settled favorably for Pfizer after the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey ruled in Pfizer's favor on every disputed claim construction issue. Pfizer v. Teva Pharms. USA, 855 F. Supp. 2d 286 (D.N.J. 2012).
- Representing Novo Nordisk in patent litigation concerning the drug Victoza(R). No. 17-00227 (D. Del.).
- Represented Novo Nordisk in IPR proceedings concerning PEGylation of therapeutic proteins.
- Representing IBSA Institut Biochimique and Altergon S.A. in pending patent litigation concerning the drug Tirosint®. IBSA Institut Biochimique v. Teva Pharms. USA, No. 18-555-LPS (D. Del.).
- Represented Altergon, IBSA Institut Biochemique, and Teikoku Seiyaku in patent infringement litigation concerning the drug Flector®. Altergon v. Actavis Labs. UT, No. 15-883-RGA (D. Del.).
- Represented Pfizer in a class action lawsuit concerning the drug Celebrex® arising under federal and state antitrust and unfair competition laws. In re Celebrex Antitrust Litigation, Nos. 14-361 & 14-395 (E.D. Va.).
- Represented a large pharmaceutical company in a class action antitrust lawsuit concerning the drug Namenda®. In re Namenda Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation, Case No. 15-CV-07488-CM-RWL (S.D.N.Y.).
- Represented foreign wireless telecommunications carriers as defendants in a patent infringement action involving over 130 parties. The U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland granted our motion to dismiss the foreign carriers for lack of personal jurisdiction, and the Federal Circuit affirmed. Technology Patents v. Deutsche Telekom, 573 F. Supp. 2d 903 (D. Md. 2008).
- Represented a large consumer products company in various patent infringement matters, including a case concerning internet encryption technology.
- “Proactive Intellectual Property Protection in the People’s Republic of China,” Connecticut Law Review, 2006, reprinted in Journal of the Copyright Society of the USA, 2007 (awarded National First Prize, 2007 Nathaniel Burkan Memorial Copyright Writing Competition)