Parisa Jorjani is of counsel in the firm’s Intellectual Property Group. Parisa focuses her practice on patent litigation, primarily representing life sciences companies, and has experience with all aspects of patent litigation, from initial case assessment through trial, appeals to the Federal Circuit, and the Supreme Court.
Her patent litigation practice includes district court, arbitration and appellate experience, as well as experience in related proceedings, such as inter partes review, reexamination requests, interference proceedings and interference appeals. Her cases have involved a variety of life sciences and medical device technologies, from monoclonal antibodies and small molecules to HIV diagnosis kits and beating heart surgery devices. She has achieved favorable results for clients, such as winning motions to dismiss, motions for summary judgment, obtaining findings of noninfringement, invalidity, and inequitable conduct, and both upholding and invalidating patent claims in Patent Office proceedings. Parisa also has experience in district court and appellate proceedings under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
Experience
(Northern District of California). Represented Medtronic in a patent infringement suit involving Estech’s minimally invasive beating heart surgery devices. Case settled on favorable terms.
(U.S. Patent and Trademark Office). Represented client in major patent interference involving blood screening diagnostic for HIV. The USPTO issued a 122-page opinion in the client’s favor.
(Arbitration) Represented multinational corporation in the medical field in arbitration with potential damages in the nine-figures. A three-arbitrator panel ruled in our client’s favor on every patent; an unusually complete victory for one side in the arbitration context.
(District of Columbia). Represented Celltech in patent litigation involving humanized monoclonal antibodies. Case settled on favorable terms.
(Northern District of California). Represented Impax in two patent litigation matters against Takeda brought under the Hatch-Waxman Act, involving Impax’s proposed generic product for the treatment of acid reflux disease. Prevailed on summary judgment of noninfringement of patent with latest expiration date in the first case, ultimately resulting in cases settling on favorable terms.
(Eastern District of Texas). Represented Alcon and Sandoz in a patent litigation matter brought under the Hatch-Waxman Act, involving glaucoma eye drops. Worked as part of trial team which assumed case from prior counsel who lost first trial, leading to noninfringement verdict after convincing court to order a new trial.