Our Website Uses Cookies
We and the third parties that provide content, functionality, or business services on our website may use cookies to collect information about your browsing activities in order to provide you with more relevant content and promotional materials, on and off the website, and help us understand your interests and improve the website.
For more information, please contact us or consult our Privacy Notice.
Your binder contains too many pages, the maximum is 40.
We are unable to add this page to your binder, please try again later.
This page has been added to your binder.
Brianne Bharkhda is a litigator who represents a variety of clients in high-stakes patent litigation. She specializes in complex pharmaceutical patent litigation, and has litigated numerous cases involving generic drug approvals and the Hatch-Waxman Act. Ms. Bharkhda has experience representing clients at all stages of litigation, from case inception through trial and appeal. Her trial experience in intellectual property actions includes both jury trials and bench trials involving issues of patent infringement and validity. She has also argued motions in several of the nation’s most active patent litigation jurisdictions and worked extensively with experts.
Ms. Bharkhda has represented clients in matters involving an array of different technology areas, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and electronics.
Ms. Bharkhda is a frequent contributor to the firm’s InsideMedicalDevices blog.
- Successful representation of Warner Chilcott in Hatch-Waxman litigations against several generic drug manufacturers relating to the ulcerative colitis drug Asacol®.
- Representation of AstraZeneca in multi-defendant Hatch-Waxman litigation relating to Nexium® and Nexium® 24HR.
- Successful representation of pharmaceutical company in Hatch-Waxman case on appeal in the Federal Circuit.
- Representation of pharmaceutical company in Hatch-Waxman litigation relating to medication used to treat osteoporosis.
- Representation of major pharmaceutical company in Hatch-Waxman litigation against several generic drug manufacturers relating to injectable drug used to treat diabetes.
- Representation of several major pharmaceutical companies in preliminary injunction litigation at district court and Federal Circuit levels to prevent threatened at-risk launches by generic competitors.
- Representation of major pharmaceutical company in patent litigation involving medical device used to treat respiratory disorders.
- Representation of large medical device company in patent litigation involving regenerative tissue graft technology.
- Representation of consumer electronics manufacturer in patent litigation concerning mobile networking technology.
- Representation of major pharmaceutical company in mass tort products liability litigation involving prescription drugs.
- Representation of Genentech in product liability lawsuits involving Rituxan®.
- Successful representation of vacuum tube manufacturer in product liability actions in state and federal court.
- Representation of leading media and technology company in patent litigation concerning mapping software.
Pro Bono
- Representation of indigent clients in family court, landlord/tenant disputes, and public benefits appeals.
- Representation of qualified applicant in appeal of state licensing board’s denial of her application for licensure as a speech and language pathologist.
Memberships and Affiliations
- American Bar Association, Litigation Section
- Asian Pacific American Bar Association of the Greater Washington, DC Area
- South Asian Bar Association of Washington, DC
December 10, 2018, Covington Alert
On December 7, 2018, the Federal Circuit issued two highly-anticipated decisions clarifying the application of the obviousness-type double patenting doctrine: Novartis AG v. Ezra Ventures LLC (patent term extension ("PTE")), and Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc. (pre-Uruguay Round Agreements Act ("URAA") versus post-URAA ...
Covington Promotes 20 New Partners
October 1, 2018
WASHINGTON—Covington has promoted 20 lawyers to its partnership. “This group covers a wide range of the firm’s most important practices and reflects the ongoing imperative of continuing to build and expand our strengths and to position the firm most effectively to be vibrant in the years ahead,” said Timothy Hester, Covington’s chair. "The size of our class is a ...
July 9, 2018, Inside Medical Devices
In Stone Basket Innovations, LLC v. Cook Medical LLC, a recent case involving the enforcement of a medical device patent, the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court’s denial of attorney fees under 35 U.S.C. § 285. In its opinion, the court provided helpful guidance regarding the factors that impact a potential award of attorney fees...… Continue Reading
April 25, 2017, Inside Medical Devices
Last week, in its opinion in Rembrandt Wireless Technologies, LP v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., the Federal Circuit resolved one question about patent marking under 35 U.S.C. § 287 but left another open—whether the marking statute applies on a claim-by-claim or patent-by-patent basis. The case stemmed from a jury verdict in the Eastern District of...… ...
August 29, 2016, Inside Medical Devices
Earlier this month in ScriptPro LLC v. Innovation Associates, Inc., the Federal Circuit overturned a district court’s grant of summary judgment based on a lack of written description under 35 U.S.C. § 112. The device patent at issue, ScriptPro’s U.S. Patent No. 6,910,601 (“the’601 patent”), “is directed to a ‘collating unit’ used with a control...… Continue ...
May 27, 2016, Inside Medical Devices
Earlier this month, the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) issued an update to its Interim Guidance on patent subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The May 2016 update is the latest in a series of guidance documents regarding subject matter eligibility issued by the PTO over the past two years. It...… Continue Reading
January 15, 2015, Inside Medical Devices
Discussion of the applicability of preemption doctrine in medical device product liability cases usually centers on two types of devices: (1) Class III medical devices approved pursuant to FDA’s premarket approval process, and (2) devices cleared through the less rigorous 510(k) process. A recent case reminds us of a different pathway to approval, which ...
October 28, 2014, Inside Medical Devices
Johnson & Johnson secured a sweeping victory last week in the first bellwether trial in the multidistrict litigation relating to DePuy’s Pinnacle system metal-on-metal hip implant device. The plaintiff argued that the components of the device could grind together causing pain, swelling, and the introduction of toxic metal fragments into the bloodstream, and ...
September 22, 2014, Inside Medical Devices
Last week, a state court jury in Dallas awarded the plaintiffs in a pelvic mesh device litigation against Boston Scientific approximately $23.5 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages. In the bellwether case, Salazar v. Lopez, plaintiffs Martha Salazar and her husband Felix Salazar sued Boston Scientific alleging she was injured ...
April 14, 2014, Inside Medical Devices
A decision by a federal district court in Allen v. Bayer Healthcare Pharms., Inc., 2014 WL 655585 (E.D. Missouri Feb. 20, 2014), demonstrates key complexities in a common strategy used by device companies in product liability lawsuits — removing the case from state to federal court. In the case, twenty-five plaintiffs from eleven states (including Delaware)...… ...
February 7, 2014, Inside Medical Devices
As we have previously discussed, removal of a medical device case to federal court can be an important strategic advantage for a defendant manufacturer. Even when proper diversity jurisdiction exists, there are several restrictions that limit a defendant’s ability to remove a case to federal court. One such limitation, set forth in 28 U.S.C. §...… Continue ...
January 30, 2014, Inside Medical Devices
When medical device companies are faced with product liability lawsuits, often one of the most critical issues is whether the court will permit expert testimony on key issues, such as whether the device caused the alleged injury. While the Daubert standard, which governs the admission of expert testimony in federal courts, has been adopted by...… Continue ...
- Washington DC Super Lawyers, Intellectual Property Litigation "Rising Star" (2015, 2016, 2017)