Intellectual Property & Patent Misuse

Gustafson Gluek represents companies or individuals in asserting or protecting their intellectual property and publicity rights. 

Gustafson Gluek has assisted in the prosecution of patent infringement claims involving medical devices and technology used in printing machines.  They have also represented individuals whose publicity rights have been infringed.

Gustafson Gluek also has extensive experience representing companies or individuals who have been harmed by patent misuse. Sometimes, however, a patent holder will attempt to abuse its exclusive rights by illegally obtaining or extending a patent in violation of the antitrust laws. Often this type of patent misuse is found in the drug industry, where a brand name drug manufacturer will attempt to keep generic drugs off the market by unlawfully extending the life of its patent by conspiring with generic manufacturers to keep less expensive generic drugs off the market (i.e., pay-for-delay), committing fraud on the patent office, or bringing sham litigation against generic manufacturers for patent infringement.

The attorneys at Gustafson Gluek have been actively involved in representing third-party payors and consumers in numerous cases involving allegations of antitrust violations related to such conduct.

The following are select cases Gustafson Gluek is currently investigating, litigating or has recently litigated on behalf of plaintiffs raising intellectual property and patent misuse concerns.

  • Gustafson Gluek represents a proposed class of Third-Party Payor Plaintiffs (i.e., health insurers and self-funded health plans) in this antitrust class action. Plaintiffs allege that defendant Teva engaged in a multifaceted conspiracy to suppress generic competition for its brand-name drug Copaxone, an injectible medication used for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Teva’s anticompetitive scheme costs plaintiffs and the proposed class hundreds of millions of dollars over the class period by significantly raising the price of an essential drug for many suffering from multiple sclerosis. The case is in its early stages. If you would like more information related to this case, please contact us using the case consultation link above.

  • $62.5 million dollars in settlement In delayed generic entry case

    Gustafson Gluek represented a class of direct purchasers of the pharmaceutical drug, Augmentin. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant GlaxoSmithKline violated the antitrust laws by unlawfully maintaining its monopoly over Augmentin and preventing the entry of generic equivalents. Gustafson Gluek helped recover $62.5 million for the class.

  • Gustafson Gluek represented a class of retired NFL players. Plaintiffs alleged that the NFL violated their privacy rights by using their likeness in marketing and advertising. After years of litigation, the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota appointed Dan Gustafson to be Lead Settlement Counsel in the case. In that role, Gustafson Gluek was able to secure a settlement with the NFL that created unprecedented avenues of revenue generation for the class.

  • Gustafson Gluek represented a class of end-payor purchasers of the pharmaceutical drug, Asacol. Plaintiffs that alleged the defendant pulled its highly successful brand-named drug from the market shortly before its patent expired in order to prevent generic manufacturers from introducing a generic version of the drug, thereby diverting purchasers to defendant’s new drug that was to enjoy patent protection for years to come. Although the proposed class was ultimately decertified by the First Circuit, Gustafson Gluek was able to help obtain damages on behalf of the named plaintiffs in the litigation.

  • Gustafson Gluek represented a proposed class of End-Payor Plaintiffs in this antitrust class action. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants, Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc., Endo Health Solutions Inc., Penwest Pharmaceuticals Co. (collectively, “Endo”), and Impax Laboratories, Inc., engaged in anticompetitive conduct to keep generic alternatives to Opana ER off the market. During trial, Plaintiffs reached a settlement with one of the defendants securing $15 million for the class.

  • Gustafson Gluek represented a proposed class of End-Payor Plaintiffs in this antitrust class action. Plaintiffs alleged anticompetitive conduct by defendants Johnson & Johnson and Jassen Biotech, Inc. in the biosimilars market. Gustafson Gluek helped recover $25 million for the class.

  • Gustafson Gluek represented a proposed class of End-Payor Plaintiffs in this antitrust class action. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant Allergan engaged in a multifaceted conspiracy to delay generic competition for its brand-name drug Restasis. Gustafson Gluek helped recover $30 million for the class.

  • $49 million dollars in settlement in delayed generic entry case

    Gustafson Gluek represented a class of direct purchasers of Wellbutrin SR. Plaintiffs alleged that defendant GlaxoSmithKline defrauded the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and filed sham lawsuits against its competitors, which delayed the availability of the generic version of Wellbutrin SR to consumers. As a result of this delay, Plaintiffs alleged that they paid more for Wellbutrin SR than they would have if the generic version had been available to them. The firm was actively involved the litigation and helped recover $49 million for the class.

  • Gustafson Gluek was one of the counsel representing the plaintiff, Spine Solutions, Inc., Synthes Spine So., L.P.P., and Synthes, Inc. against Medtronic Safamor Danek, Inc. and Medtronic Sofamor Donek, USA in this patent litigation. The patent at issue involved technology relating to spinal disc implants. This case went to trial in November 2008 and Dan Gustafson was one of the lead trial attorneys. A jury verdict was returned in favor of our client. The jury found willful infringements and awarded both lost profits and reasonable royalty damages to our client.