Brianne Bharkhda

April 2, 2019

WASHINGTON—Covington has chosen Washington partner Brianne Bharkhda to be a member of The Leadership Council on Legal Diversity’s 2019 class of Fellows. Ms. Bharkhda will participate in programs designed to identify, train, and advance the next generation of leaders in the legal profession. Ms. Bharkhda is a litigator who represents a variety of clients in ...

December 14, 2018, Law360

Brianne Bharkhda and Natalie Derzko are quoted in Law360 regarding two Federal Circuit decisions that have cleared up lingering questions about patents can be invalidated under the double-patenting doctrine and identified situations where it does not apply. Ms. Bharkhda says, "I would characterize the two decisions as further defining the contours of the ...

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 ...

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 ...

July/August 2011, Food & Drink Magazine