Skip to main content
Adam gahtan Headshot

Adam Gahtan

Partner
Litigation

In a diverse litigation practice, Adam represents leading technology and life sciences companies in complex commercial, intellectual property, antitrust, and tax litigation.

As head of the firm’s tax controversy practice, Adam has led trials against the IRS in high stakes cases involving challenging technology, and he has helped clients win dismissal of tax-based consumer class actions. Adam also co-chairs Fenwick’s appellate practice, advising clients and colleagues on strategy, drafting, and argument for appeals in cases across legal disciplines.

  • UCB v. Watson Labs. Adam was retained to lead the appellate team representing UCB in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in an appeal brought by multiple generic manufacturers following UCB’s successful Hatch-Waxman-based patent infringement action concerning its anti-Parkinson’s medication Neupro®.
  • Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative Services. Adam was retained as appellate counsel to represent Athena Diagnostics in its appeal from a district court decision holding that its novel anti-MuSK autoantibody assay system was patent-ineligible under 35 U.S.C. 101. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held oral argument, widely covered in the industry press, on October 4, 2018.
  • Quest Diagnostics Investments v. Lab. Corp. of Am. Holdings. Adam represented Quest Diagnostics in a patent infringement suit related to mass spectrometry assays to quantitate vitamin D and testosterone from patient samples. After getting a favorable claim construction ruling and defeating LabCorp’s motion to invalidate Quest’s patent claims under 35 U.S.C. § 101, the parties reached a favorable settlement.
  • UCB v. Accord Healthcare. Adam was retained to lead a multi-firm appellate team representing UCB, Research Corp. Tech. and Harris FRC Corp. in an appeal from a victory in a Hatch-Waxman litigation, against multiple generic manufacturers, concerning UCB’s Vimpat® antiepileptic medication. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held in favor of our clients on all grounds, affirming the patent’s validity.
  • In re Celebrex (Celecoxib) Antitrust Litigation. Represented major innovator pharmaceutical company in antitrust action based on Walker Process-based patent fraud theories brought by wholesale and retail purchasers of client’s Celebrex® pain medication. Following summary judgment arguments, the matter settled for a small fraction of potential damages.
  • UCB v. Yeda Research & Devel. Co. Counsel to UCB in a declaratory judgment patent infringement action against a technology transfer company in the U.S. Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. The litigation involved UCB’s biologic Cimzia®, an antibody approved for the treatment of Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis, among other indications. Successfully obtained summary judgment of no infringement based on a favorable claim construction. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed.
  • Pfizer v. Teva Pharms. USA. Successful representation of a pharmaceutical company in a series of Hatch-Waxman patent infringement cases in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware against multiple generic manufacturers. The actions involved the blockbuster pharmaceutical drug, Lyrica®, indicated for treatment of seizures and pain. Trial wins on all asserted patents were affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
  • Apotex v. UCB. Successful trial and appellate representation of pharmaceutical innovator UCB in patent infringement suit brought by generic manufacturer Apotex, in which Apotex alleged that UCB’s Univasc® and Uniretic® high blood pressure medications infringed its patented method of manufacture. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida found in UCB’s favor on all defenses, including that Apotex had obtained its patent through inequitable conduct before the PTO. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed unanimously, in what was described in subsequent press as a “relatively rare occurrence” given the recently heightened standard for proving inequitable conduct. Following Adam’s successful appellate argument, the district court awarded UCB over $6 million in legal fees, ruling that the case was “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285.
  • Wireless Ink v. Google. Represented Google in two patent infringement matters filed in the Southern District of New York by Wireless Ink Corporation. Obtained a summary judgment of non-infringement of all asserted claims, which was affirmed on appeal. A third matter was stayed pending reexamination of the patent-in-suit, the claims of which were rejected by the patent office and the pending case was dismissed in 2016.
  • Technology Patents v. T-Mobile (UK) Ltd. Obtained dismissal of patent infringement action against foreign telecoms carriers on the basis of lack of personal jurisdiction, notwithstanding carriers’ roaming and other arrangements with United States-based carriers.
  • Acorda Therapeutics v. Mylan Pharms. Retained to draft an amicus curiae brief on behalf of Biotechnology Industry Organization.