Cases
Representative Matters: Trial: Mitsubishi Chemical Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 2d 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (Koeltl, J.), affirmed, No. 2010-1432, 2011 WL 3288394 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2011): Client's patent held valid over anticipation
obviousness challenges
defendant's ANDA approval enjoined.
Daley/Taylor v. Avellino, Nos. NACV2009-09/10 (Mass Super. Ct. May 9, 2011) (Cratsley, J.): Successfully obtained reversal of jury verdict on appeal.
Roquette Freres v. SPI Pharma, Inc., No. 06-540 (D. Del. Oct. 4, 2010) (Sleet, C.J.).
Massachusetts Housing Court (various).
Appellate: Daley/Taylor v. Avellino, No. 2012-P-0736 (Mass. App. Ct. April 18, 2013): Obtained complete reversal of judgment on jury verdict.
Rota-McLarty v. Sant
er Consumer USA Inc., 700 F.3d 690, (4th Cir. 2012): Obtained reversal of district court judgment denying motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action.
DeLia v. Verizon Communications Inc., 656 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011): Obtained affirmance of district court summary judgment in favor of client on various employment law claims.
Mitsubishi Chemical Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., No. 2010-1432, 2011 WL 3288394 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2011): Obtained affirmance of district court judgment upholding client's patent over anticipation
obviousness challenges.
Boston Telecommunications Group, Inc. v. Wood, 588 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2009): Obtained reversal of district court's dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, overcoming abuse of discretion review.
Simmons v. Galvin, 575 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2009): Application of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to felon disenfranchisement laws. Appealed to US Supreme Court (No. 09-920)
referred to Solicitor General (May 3, 2010), but certiorari ultimately denied (Oct. 18, 2010).
Other Litigation: Defense of multiple state
federal class actions involving Massachusetts l
lord-tenant law.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. v. Mylan, Inc., No. 12-00024 (S.D.N.Y.): Hatch-Waxman action involving multiple Orange Book-listed patents covering an extended-release combination product for treatment of type 2 diabetes.
Hy-Ko Products Company v. The Hillman Group, Inc., No. 08-1961 (N.D. Ohio): Patent infringement action involving key duplication technology.
Boston Telecommunications Group, Inc. v. Wood, No. 02-05971 (N.D. Cal.): Dispute over investment in cable television venture.
American Tower, Inc. v. Woodcrest Co., No. 2009-1309 (Ark. Cir. Ct., Pulaski County): Dispute over cell tower lease.