John T. Gallagher

February 1, 2017
« Back to Attorneys Listing

John T. Gallagher

Partner

Email
vCard   Linkedin URL

6900 Jericho Turnpike
Syosset, NY 11791-4407
Tel: 516.822.3550
Fax: 516.822.3582

Expertise

  • Biotechnology
  • Chemical
  • Medical Devices
  • Pharmaceutical
  • Materials
  • Mechanical
  • Litigation

Overview

John Gallagher joined the New York office of Hoffmann & Baron as a partner in 2013. John’s practice focuses on the representation of corporations, small entities and individuals in patent infringement, antitrust, trade secret, and unfair competition disputes. With more than 25 years of experience, John routinely serves as lead trial counsel in litigations in federal district courts throughout the United States, before the U.S. International Trade Commission in Section 337 actions, as well as in arbitration and mediation proceedings. John has also been lead appellate counsel in matters before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In addition, he frequently advises clients on the strategic use, acquisition and sale of intellectual property assets, licensing programs, and freedom to operate and due diligence issues, and is also involved in all aspects of patent solicitation, including post grant review proceedings.

Practice Expertise

John’s litigation and counseling experience encompasses a wide range of technologies, including medical devices (e.g., vascular grafts, stent-grafts, angioplasty balloon products and delivery systems, catheters, surgical staples), consumer products, prescription drugs, over-the-counter pharmaceutical products, dietary supplements and nutraceuticals, antibiotics, vaccines, fuel cells, polymer chemistry, catalysts, fungicides, printing products and processes, semiconductors, and software systems.

Bar & Court Admissions

  • State of New York
  • State of Connecticut
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
  • United States District Court for the District of Colorado
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • Registered to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office

Education

  • St. John’s University School of Law, J.D., 1988;
  • Managing Editor, St. John’s Journal of Legal Commentary
  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, B.S. Chemical Engineering, 1980

Memberships

  • Member, New York Bar Association
  • Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association

Counsel for Plaintiffs

  • SAS Group, Inc. v. Solo Brands Inc., et al., Civ. A. No. 22-cv-1065 (S.D.N.Y)
  • Neurelis, Inc. v. Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc., No. 21-1038 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 7, 2021)
  • Aquestive Therapeutics, Inc. v. Neuralis, Inc., IPR2019-00451 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 6, 2020)
  • Rimfrost AS v. Aker Biomarine Antarctic AS, IPR2018-01730 (P.T.A.B. Mar. 6, 2020)
  • Rimfrost AS v. Aker Biomarine Antarctic AS, IPR2018-01178, -01179 (P.T.A.B. Jan. 13, 2020)
  • Aker Biomarine Antarctic v. Rimfrost AS, 786 Fed. Appx. 251 (Fed. Cir. 2019)
  • Rimfrost AS v. Aker Biomarine Antarctic AS, IPR2018-00295 (P.T.A.B. June 12, 2019)
  • Rimfrost AS v. Aker Biomarine Antarctic AS, IPR2017-00745, -00746 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 10, 2018)
  • MedShape Inc. v. Cayenne Medical, Inc., IPR2015-00847, -00848 (P.T.A.B. 2016)
  • Pella Corp. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 2594 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 10, 2012)
  • TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar Corp., et al., 646 F.3d 869 (Fed. Cir. 2011)
  • Daikin Industries v. Arkema S.A. and Arkema Inc., Civ. A. No. 10-535 (SLR) (D. Del. 2010)
  • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. MacDermid Printing Solutions, L.L.C., 525 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
  • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Great Lakes Chemical Corp., 383 F. Supp. 2d 642 (D. Del 2005)
  • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Kronos Inc. et al., Civ. A. No. 05-0061 (KAJ) (D. Del 2005)
  • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. MacDermid, Inc. et al., Civ. A. Nos. 02-303, 02-1467 (kaj) (d. Del. 2002)
  • Tseng v. Doroodian-Shoja, Interference No. 104,482 (Bd. Of Patent Appeals & Interferences 2001)
  • W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. v. Tensolite Co., Civ. A. No. 99-665 (SLR) (D. Del. 1999)
  • Arthur D. Little Enters., Inc. et al. v. The Gillette Co., Civ. A. No. 99-3-99 (GMS) (D. Del. 1999)
  • C.R. Bard INc. v. Guidant Corp., 46 uspq2D 1713 (D. Del. 1998)
  • The Procter & Gamble Company v. Conopco Inc., et al., Civ. A. No. 98-767 (E.D. Va. 1998)
  • The Procter & Gamble Company v. Paragon Trade Brands, 989 F. Supp. 547 (D. Del. 1997)
  • Richardson-Vicks, Inc. v. Upjohn Co., 122 F.3d 1476 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
  • C.R. Bard, Inc. v. Cordis Corp., Civ. A. No. 89-0606-RWZ (D. Mass. 1996)
  • E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company v. Monsanto Co., 903 F. Supp. 680 (D. Del. 1995)

Counsel for Defendants

  • Solo Brands, LLC v. Target Corp., Case No. 2:22-vc-00115 (E.D. Tex.)
  • Solo Brands, LLC v. SAS Group, Inc. and Duraflame, Inc., Case No. 3:22-cv-00337 (N.D. Tex.)
  • Ever Victory Tech. LTD. v. SAS Group, Inc., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 154954 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 11, 2019)
  • Theromolife Int’l v. Myogenix Corp., et al., 2017 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 176276 (S.D. Ca. Oct. 24, 2017)
  • Cayenne Medical, Inc. v. MedShape, Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6044 (D. Ariz. May 6, 2016)
  • In re Certain Krill Oil Products and Krill Meal for Production of Krill Oil Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-1019 (U.S.I.T.C. 2016)
  • In re Certain Omega-e Extracts from Marine or Aquatic Biomass, Investigation NO. 337-TA-877 (U.S.I.T.C. 2014)
  • ThermoLIfe International, LLC v. Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 178680 (D. Ariz. Dec. 18, 2012)
  • ClearValue, Inc. v. Pearl River Polymers, Inc., 668 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2012)
  • NMT Medical, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., Civ. A. No. 08-790 (SLR) (D. Del. 2008)
  • Edwards Lifesciences LLC, et al. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. et al.,2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 70130 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 15, 2008)
  • Andersen Corp. v. Pella Corp. and W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., 500 F. Supp. 2d 1192 (D. Minn. 2007)
  • Medtronic, Inc. v. W.L. Gore & associates, Inc., Civ. A. No. 06-04455 (JSW) (N.D. Cal. 2006)
  • MacDermid Graphic Arts, Inc. v. E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company, Civ. A. No. 3:02CV00930 (DJS) (D. Conn. 2002)
  • Herman v. William Brooks Shoe Co., et al., 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 4178 (Fed. Cir. Mar. 12,2001)
  • International Nutrition Co. v. Horphag Research, Ltd. et al., 2000 U.S. Dist LEXIS 18083 (D. Conn. 2000)
  • Colgate Palmolive Co. v. W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc., 919 F. Supp. 767 (D.N.J. 1996)
  • Cordis Corp. v. C.R. Bard., Inc. 30 USPQ2d 1664 (S.D. Tex. 1993)
  • In re Certain Crystalline Cefadroxil Monohydrate, Investigation 337-TA-293 (U.S.I.T.C. 1989)

Publications and Lectures

  • The America Invents Act and Two Years of Changes to Patent Litigation, BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 87 PTCJ 518 (January 2014)
  • The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Does Not Dive into the Turbulent Waters of the Supreme Court’s Stream of Commerce Debate, The Metropolitan Corporate Counsel (November 2012)
  • The Evolution of the Standard for Establishing Willful Infringement – After Five Years the Objective Recklessness Component of Seagate is Now a Question of Law, BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 84 PTCJ 683 (August 2012)
  • The Federal Circuit Continues to Make Inequitable Conduct More Difficult to Prove, The National Law Review (October 2012)
  • The Federal Circuit Will Decide if a Damages Trial or Decision on Willfulness Is Required Before Judgment of Patent Infringement Can Be Appealed, The National Law Review (August 2012)
  • The Latest, but Perhaps Not Last, Word on Pleading Requirements for Direct and Indirect Infringement, The National Law Review (July 2012)
  • Willful Infringement Will Now Be Harder to Prove, Intellectual Property Client Alert (June 2012)