Richard C. Pettus

• Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal Pharma Ltd., et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.: Lead trial counsel for Teva in a fully remote four (4) day Hatch-Waxman bench trial before Judge Noreika in the District of Delaware involving the VELPHORO^® patents directed to iron oxy-hydroxide formulations and associated methods for treating hyperphosphatemia. Currently litigating newly-added Orange Book patents while the parties await a decision of the Court.
• Acrotech Biopharma LLC, et al. v. Alembic Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al.: Lead counsel for Alembic in Hatch-Waxman litigation in the District of New Jersey involving an Orange Book patent for the EVOMELA® (Captisol®-enabled Melphalan HCl) injectable product.
• Collegium Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.: Represented Teva in Hatch-Waxman litigation in the District of Delaware involving the XTAMPZA^® “abuse-resistant” oxycodone formulation and curing process patents. Settled following successful Markman
• Keryx Biopharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.: Representing Teva in Hatch-Waxman litigation in the District of Delaware involving the AURYXIA^® patents directed to ferric citrate formulations and associated methods of treating hyperphosphatemia in patients with chronic kidney disease.
• Pernix Ireland Pain Ltd and Pernix Therapeutics, LLC v. Actavis Laboratories:  Represented Actavis/Teva in Paragraph IV challenges of Pernix Ireland Pain Ltd.’s patents in the District of Delaware relating to Zohydro^® extended release hydrocodone tablets indicated for the management of severe pain. Settled following Markman
• Bristol-Myers Squibb and Pfizer v. Emcure Pharmaceuticals: Represented Emcure in the Paragraph IV challenge of patents covering the billion-dollar Eliquis product in the District of Delaware. Settled prior to fact discovery.
• LEO Pharma v. Actavis: Represented Actavis/Teva in a Paragraph IV challenge of multiple patents in the District of Delaware relating to Picato^® gel used to treat actinic keratosis on the skin. Settled prior to trial.
• Mallinckrodt et al. v. B. Braun Medical Inc.: Represented B. Braun in a 505(b)(2) Paragraph IV challenge of the OFIRMEV intravenous paracetamol formulation and manufacturing process patents in the Districts of Delaware and the E.D. of Pennsylvania. Settled following Markman ruling in favor of B. Braun and invitation by the district court judge to file for summary judgment.
• Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc.: Representing Actavis/Teva in the trial and appeal of its Paragraph IV challenge to Orexigen Therapeutics’ patents in the District of Delaware relating to Contrave^® extended-release tablets for the treatment of obesity.
• Recro Gainesville LLC v. Actavis Laboratories FL Inc.: Represented Actavis/Teva in the appeal of a Paragraph IV challenge of in the Federal Circuit relating to Pernix’s patents on Zohydro^® extended release hydrocodone tablets for the management of severe pain.
• Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC v. B. Braun Medical Inc.: Represented B. Braun in connection with litigation involving its 505(b)(2) application for injectable propofol in the District of Delaware. Settled shortly after filing of a motion to dismiss by B. Braun.
• Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.: Represented Teva in Hatch-Waxman litigation in the District of Delaware involving the Orange Book patents for the DYMISTA nasal spray combination drug product. Settled following Markman
• Unimed Pharmaceuticals and Besins Healthcare v. Reddy’s Laboratories: Represented Dr. Reddy’s in a Paragraph IV challenge of the patents relating to AndroGel testosterone gel product in the District of Delaware. Settled prior to fact discovery.
• Shire Development, LLC, et al. v. Watson Pharmaceuticals et al.: Represented Actavis/Teva in appeal of Paragraph IV challenge of Shire Development’s patent relating to Lialda^®, indicated for induction and maintenance of remission in patients with active, mild to moderate ulcerative colitis, wherein Federal Circuit found non-infringement and denied Shire’s request for rehearing.
• Mallinckrodt LLC, et al. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc.: Represented Actavis/Teva in a Paragraph IV challenge of Mallinckrodt LLC’s patents in the District of New Jersey relating to Xartemis^® extended-release tablets for the treatment of acute pain requiring opioid treatment.
• Aralez Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., et al.: Represented Teva in Paragraph IV challenge of Aralez Pharmaceutical Inc.’s patents in the E.D. of Texas relating to the Yosprala^® product for patients requiring aspirin for secondary prevention of cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events and who are at risk of developing aspirin-associated gastric ulcers.
• Duramed v. Mylan and Lupin: Lead trial counsel for Duramed/Teva in a Hatch Waxman action in the District of New Jersey involving extended regimen oral contraceptive products.
• Baxter v. Minrad: Trial counsel for Baxter in an ANDA Hatch-Waxman challenge to a patent covering the highly volatile Desflurane liquid anesthetic drug product in the District of Delaware. Settled following cross-examination of opposing party’s witnesses at trial.°
• Boehringer-Ingelheim v. Norbrook: Lead counsel for animal health pharmaceutical company in “Green Book” Paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman challenge to patent covering liquid oral suspension formulations of anti-inflammatory drug product in the W.D. Missouri. Resolved by pro-competitive settlement following mediation.°
• GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva: Trial counsel for GSK in ANDA Hatch-Waxman challenge to patents covering billion dollar ZOFRAN anti-nausea and vomiting drug products in the District of Delaware. Settled following bench trial and Federal Circuit appeal.°
• GlaxoSmithKline v. Dr. Reddy’s: Trial counsel for GSK in ANDA Hatch-Waxman challenge to molecule and method of use patents as well as a declaratory judgment action on its manufacturing process patent. Settled following two-week bench trial.°
• Glaxo v. Novopharm: Participated in the enforcement of patents covering one of the world’s best-selling drugs of the 1990’s, Zantac, for a Glaxo in various district courts across the country against multiple generic competitors seeking ANDA approval.°
• Conducted confidential ANDA pre-litigation evaluations on behalf of pharmaceutical companies of patent portfolios covering compounds, combination products and associated drug formulations and delivery technology. Based on this work, handled interference proceedings involving certain patents in one of the portfolios.°

• Hetero v. Glenmark: Defended Glenmark in the District of New Jersey against patent infringement claims relating to the antibiotic drug compound Linezolid.
• Delavau v. Watson: Represented Delavau in patent infringement action brought in the E.D. of Pennsylvania involving dietary calcium fortification technologies.
• Enzo Biochem. Inc., et al. v. Affymetrix, Roche Diagnostics, etc.: Represented Enzo Biochem in connection with multiple patent litigations in the S.D.N.Y. relating to methods and devices for labeling, hybridization and detection of nucleic acids.
• Delavau v. J.M. Huber: Represented Delavau in preliminary injunction proceedings brought in the District of New Jersey involving nutraceutical tablets.
• Takeda v. Atrix Labs. and Sanofi: Lead trial (jury and bench) counsel for Sanofi in an action in the N.D. of Illinois involving an injectable (subcutaneous and intramuscular) sustained release biodegradable polymer drug delivery patent.°
• Glaxo v. 3M: Represented Glaxo in multiple litigations in the Districts of Minnesota and the M.D. of North Carolina involving patents relating to hydrofluoroalkane (HFA) metered-dose asthma inhaler formulations resulting in global cross-license.°

• Orthopaedic Hospital v. Aesculap Implant Systems, et al.: Defending Aesculap in patent suit in the District of Delaware relating to joint replacement technology.
• Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. B. Braun Medical Inc., et al.: Defending B. Braun against patent infringement claims relating to acute renal therapy kidney dialysis devices in the E.D. of Pennsylvania.
• Wall v. B. Braun Interventional Systems Inc., et al.: Defended B. Braun against patent infringement claims relating to cardiovascular stent technologies in the N.D. of Texas.  Settled prior to fact discovery.
• CareFusion 303 Inc. v. B. Braun Medical Inc.: Defended B. Braun against a claim for patent infringement by CareFusion 303 relating to intravenous medical valve devices. After prevailing on multiple discovery motions, we obtained substantial monetary sanctions against the plaintiff for discovery misconduct.  In a very rare ruling, the court also granted B. Braun’s motion for summary judgment on its defense of laches, reducing the potential damages at trial by approximately 90-95 percent.  Two days before trial the Court granted B. Braun’s motion to dismiss the case with prejudice as an evidentiary sanction against plaintiff and revoked the pro hac vice applications of counsel for plaintiff for a period of three years in the C.D. of California.
• Barry v. Medtronic Inc.: Represented Medtronic in a litigation involving surgical methods and systems for correcting severe spinal deformities in the E.D. of Texas.
• Data Carriers v. BioMarin Pharmaceutical: Defended BioMarin in multi-defendant patent suit in the E.D. Texas concerning the alleged infringement by the company’s internal databases. Settled prior to fact discovery.
• TLIF, LLP v. Aesculap Implant Systems: Defended Aesculap in patent suit in the E.D. Texas relating to spinal implants.
• Rydex Technologies LLC v. B. Braun Medical Inc.:  Represented B. Braun in multi-defendant patent lawsuit in the District of Delaware concerning electronic intravenous medical pump controls.
• GlaxoSmithKline v. ASO: Obtained Consent Judgment in the District of Delaware as lead counsel for GSK in the successful assertion of a patent covering market-leading BreatheRight medical adhesive strips for nasal dilation.°
• Cirrex Systems v. InfraReDx: Lead counsel in patent litigation in the District of Massachusetts involving patented intravascular fiber optic catheter probes for detection and characterization of coronary artery plaques and other human tissues.°
• Zohmann v. B. Braun: Defeated a multi-million dollar claim for infringement of a patent directed to spinal anesthesia needles after a five-day jury trial in the E.D. of Pennsylvania.°
• Vital Signs v. County Line: Represented CPR manikin manufacturer in patent infringement suit in the District of New Jersey. Settled following mediation.°
• Conopco v. Carter-Wallace: Represented Conopco in the assertion of pregnancy test kit patents.°
• Thermoscan v. Safe Design: Represented the patentee Thermoscan in a patent litigation in the S.D. of California involving digital ear thermometers.°
• Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Miles Laboratories, Inc.: Represented Ortho in the assertion of flow cytometer (blood analyzer) patents against competitor through trial in the S.D.N.Y.°

• Electrical Prefab Systems v. Thomas & Betts: Represented patentee EPS in the assertion of patents covering open-back electrical junction boxes for pre-fab applications in the District of Arizona.
• SkillSurvey v. Checkster: Represented the patentee SkillSurvey in the assertion of a patent in the E.D. of Pennsylvania covering a system for employment reference-checking.
• Furuno v. Navico: Defended Navico in a patent lawsuit involving integrated computer systems for marine navigation (ITC).
• Electrical Prefab Systems v. Cooper Crouse Hinds/Eaton: Represented patentee EPS in the assertion of patents covering open-back electrical junction boxes for pre-fab applications in the District of Arizona.
• Lead counsel defending major electronics and cellular phone manufacturer in multi-defendant patent infringement lawsuit in the W.D. of Tennessee involving use of personalized user information for targeted advertising.
• In re Certain Semiconductor Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same: Co-lead trial counsel for complainant Qimonda in ITC action involving semiconductor manufacturing patents.°
• GTX v. Kofax: Counsel for patentee in action filed in the E.D. of Texas involving document scanning software for correction of skew and other errors.°
• Ingersoll-Rand v. Wilden Pump: Secured summary judgment of invalidity of a patent covering electronic pump controls in the C.D. of California.°
• TM Patents v. EMC, IBM and Hiachi: Asserted the Thinking Machines patent portfolio in a series of actions, including a two-week jury trial in the District of Massachusetts, resulting in the licensing of the market leaders in the large-scale enterprise computer data storage industry.°
• Wilden v. Ingersoll-Rand: Represented a large industrial equipment manufacturer in a Markmanhearing in the District of New Jersey.°
• SCI v. Carborundum: Successfully defended Carborundum in the W.D.N.Y. against patent infringement claims involving silicon carbide for industrial applications.°
• Asserted claims of theft of business method trade secrets relating to consumer billing technology.°

• DevPat AB v. USANA Health Sciences, Inc.: Asserted and settled DevPat’s SMARTSHAKE trademark claims against USANA’s shaker bottle and shake mix products, after obtaining the dismissal of USANA’s declaratory judgment action in the District of Utah, and denial of USANA motion to dismiss in the S.D.N.Y.
• P&G v. Unilever: Represented Unilever in the “soap war” patent litigations in the E.D. of Virginia involving multiple patents covering detergents, shower gels, toothpaste and related technologies.°
• FoldPak v. Temple-Inland: Represented the patentee FoldPak in the assertion of patents covering containers for ice cream in the E.D. of California.°
• Powers v. Simplex et al.: Represented patentee Powers in the assertion of a patent covering wall fasteners multiple litigations in the E.D.N.Y.°
• CertainTeed v. Atlas, Elk, etc.: Represented the patentee CertainTeed in the assertion of design patents covering roof shingles.°
• P&G v. Paragon: Defended against claims of patent infringement involving Paragon’s diaper products in the District of Delaware.°

°The above representations were handled by Mr. Pettus prior to his joining Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

• Prior to becoming an attorney, Mr. Pettus held engineering positions at IBM (T.J. Watson Advanced Silicon Technologies Laboratory), Allied-Signal (Aerospace Division), and Ebasco/Ratheon (Nuclear Power Systems Division).

• Listed, IAM magazine, "IAM Patent 1000," Litigation, 2012-2024
• Team Member, a Law360 “Product Liability Practice Group of the Year,” 2021-2022
• Listed, Managing IP Magazine's World IP Handbook and Survey, "IP Stars," 2013-2024
  • Patent Star, 2013-2024
  • Trademark Star, 2013-2022
• Listed, Super Lawyers magazine, New York Metro Super Lawyers, 2024
• Listed, LMG Life Sciences, "Life Science Star" (Litigation, Hatch Waxman, Strategy and Management), 2010-2024
• Listed, Lawdragon 500 (2006 inaugural edition), “New Stars”

• Member, New York State Bar Association
• Member, Conner Inn of Court (S.D.N.Y.)
• Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association
• Member, New York Intellectual Property Law Association