Ryan Johnson
212-430-2746
ryan.johnson@fenwick.com
Partner
Litigation
Ryan
Johnson
Ryan
Johnson
Ryan
Johnson
Partner
Litigation

Ryan concentrates on complex intellectual property litigation. His patent litigation work has been recognized by The Legal 500, among others. He has represented clients in the pharmaceutical, biotech, consumer products, telecommunications and high-tech sectors in District Courts, the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). He also routinely advises innovative companies on the patent-related aspects of acquisitions, licenses and other transactions.

Ryan has extensive experience representing and counseling clients in the pharmaceutical industry, including at trial in their most important patent cases. His clients include leading biopharmaceutical companies like Pfizer, Novo Nordisk and UCB, as well as emerging companies striving to protect their IP and find a path to market. Through his many years of experience with the industry, Ryan understands the numerous regulatory, commercial and scientific challenges that these companies face, and this knowledge informs all facets of his representations. Beyond patent litigation, Ryan also has substantial experience representing pharmaceutical companies in antitrust matters and other complex commercial litigation.

Before attending law school, Ryan 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, Ryan was a partner in the litigation group at a leading international law firm.

Read more

  • Representing Novo Nordisk A/S and Novo Nordisk as plaintiffs in a series of Hatch-Waxman patent litigations and an inter partes review relating to the blockbuster diabetes drug Victoza®. The patents-in-suit relate to the drug’s active ingredient, formulation and delivery device. Novo Nordisk v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, 1:17-cv-00227-JFB-SRF (D. Del.); Novo Nordisk v. Mylan Institutional, 1:19-cv-01551-CFC-SRF (D. Del.); Novo Nordisk v. Sandoz, 1:20-cv-00747-CFC (D. Del.).
  • Representing Pharmacosmos A/S and Pharmacosmos Therapeutics as defendants in patent litigation brought by a competitor in relation to Pharmacosmos’ newly launched iron deficiency anemia treatment Monoferric®. American Regent v. Pharmacosmos A/S, 3:20-cv-01350-BRM-LHG (D.N.J.).
  • Represented Pfizer and UCB in a series of District Court and PTAB trials concerning the drug Toviaz®. In the first trial against five defendants, the District Court ruled in Pfizer and UCB’s favor on all issues. Pfizer v. Sandoz, No. 13-1110-GMS, 2016 WL 1611377 (D. Del. Apr. 20, 2016). In the second trial, the District Court ruled in Pfizer and UCB’s favor on all issues immediately upon the close of evidence. Pfizer v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, No. 15-79-GMS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125634 (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2017). The PTAB upheld all challenged claims in UCB’s patents and the Federal Circuit affirmed. Amerigen v. UCB Pharma GmbH, 913 F.3d 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
  • 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 as patent owner in an inter partes review filed by a competitor 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 at trial in a patent infringement case against eight generic manufacturers concerning the blockbuster pain and epilepsy drug Lyrica®. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware ruled in Pfizer's favor on all issues and the Federal Circuit affirmed. Pfizer v. Teva Pharms. USA, 882 F. Supp. 2d 643 (D. Del. 2012), aff'd 555 Fed. Appx. 961 (2014).
  • Represented Swiss biopharmaceutical company IBSA Institut Biochimique in U.S. patent litigation and other patent matters.
  • 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 cases concerning internet encryption technology and social media marketing.

  • Representing Novo Nordisk A/S and Novo Nordisk as plaintiffs in a series of Hatch-Waxman patent litigations and an inter partes review relating to the blockbuster diabetes drug Victoza®. The patents-in-suit relate to the drug’s active ingredient, formulation and delivery device. Novo Nordisk v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, 1:17-cv-00227-JFB-SRF (D. Del.); Novo Nordisk v. Mylan Institutional, 1:19-cv-01551-CFC-SRF (D. Del.); Novo Nordisk v. Sandoz, 1:20-cv-00747-CFC (D. Del.).
  • Representing Pharmacosmos A/S and Pharmacosmos Therapeutics as defendants in patent litigation brought by a competitor in relation to Pharmacosmos’ newly launched iron deficiency anemia treatment Monoferric®. American Regent v. Pharmacosmos A/S, 3:20-cv-01350-BRM-LHG (D.N.J.).
  • Represented Pfizer and UCB in a series of District Court and PTAB trials concerning the drug Toviaz®. In the first trial against five defendants, the District Court ruled in Pfizer and UCB’s favor on all issues. Pfizer v. Sandoz, No. 13-1110-GMS, 2016 WL 1611377 (D. Del. Apr. 20, 2016). In the second trial, the District Court ruled in Pfizer and UCB’s favor on all issues immediately upon the close of evidence. Pfizer v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, No. 15-79-GMS, 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 125634 (D. Del. Aug. 9, 2017). The PTAB upheld all challenged claims in UCB’s patents and the Federal Circuit affirmed. Amerigen v. UCB Pharma GmbH, 913 F.3d 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
  • 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 as patent owner in an inter partes review filed by a competitor 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 at trial in a patent infringement case against eight generic manufacturers concerning the blockbuster pain and epilepsy drug Lyrica®. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware ruled in Pfizer's favor on all issues and the Federal Circuit affirmed. Pfizer v. Teva Pharms. USA, 882 F. Supp. 2d 643 (D. Del. 2012), aff'd 555 Fed. Appx. 961 (2014).
  • Represented Swiss biopharmaceutical company IBSA Institut Biochimique in U.S. patent litigation and other patent matters.
  • 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 cases concerning internet encryption technology and social media marketing.

Recognition Recognition Recognition

Recognition Recognition Recognition

Recognition
The Legal 500

2019-2020

Recognized Ryan for Patents: Litigation (full coverage).

Super Lawyers

2019

Recognized Ryan as an Intellectual Property Litigation Rising Star in New York.

IAM Patent 1000

2022

Recognized for patent litigation in New York.

Recognition
The Legal 500

2019-2020

Recognized Ryan for Patents: Litigation (full coverage).

Super Lawyers

2019

Recognized Ryan as an Intellectual Property Litigation Rising Star in New York.

IAM Patent 1000

2022

Recognized for patent litigation in New York.

Login

Don’t have an account yet?

Register