David Ludwig’s practice focuses on patent litigation and counseling in a wide range of industries, including electronics, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and scientific instruments. He has also litigated cases pertaining to copyrights, trademarks, and administrative law. David is adept at all stages of litigation, having served as counsel in several district court trials and several appeals. Most recently, David argued before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in the defense of a pro bono client’s First Amendment rights. He is also licensed to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and has represented clients in multiple inter partes review and interference proceedings.

Clients and team members rely on David for his broad-based scientific expertise, deep knowledge of patent law, and sharp analytical skills. A student of physics and having spent over eight years working with experts in the chemical, medical, and biological arts, David can quickly understand and analyze a wide range of new technologies and associated patent rights. He is able to assess case merits and develop potent litigation strategy under tight time constraints, allowing clients to make timely strategic decisions in urgent situations.

While David is first and foremost a litigator, he is also trained in business and holds an M.B.A. David’s education and interest in business decision-making permits him to see beyond the mere legal issues facing clients to the business realities that must often take precedence. As a result, clients and team members have recognized David as a key asset in counseling clients on patent-related issues and strategy, leading David to be recognized by the Connecticut Law Tribune as a “New Leader in the Law.”

Experience

Representative Matters:

• Served as appellate and trial counsel in obtaining a decision from the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirming a District of Delaware bench trial decision that the patents covering Zohydro^® (hydrocodone extended-release capsules) and asserted against Axinn client Alvogen were invalid. The decision removed the patents as a barrier to Alvogen bringing its lower-cost generic product to market more than a decade before the patents were set to expire.
• Defended DePuy Synthes (a Johnson & Johnson company) in a patent infringement action in the District of Massachusetts brought by a non-practicing entity. The technology pertained to DePuy Synthes’s spinal implant products. After obtaining dismissal of key claims and filing several inter partes review petitions against the asserted patents, the case settled on favorable terms.
• Currently defending Samsung in the District of New Jersey in a patent infringement suit brought by Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. The technology at issue relates to Samsung’s QLED television displays.
• Obtained favorable decision from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals to enable Watson Laboratories (now Teva) to speed its generic version of Celebrex^® to market. An earlier lower court decision had effectively barred Watson and others from bringing their drugs to market. The Fourth Circuit reversed and remanded, finding that Watson and another company were eligible to share in a period of 180-day marketing exclusivity on the launch of their generic versions of Celebrex^® because a reissued patent was not part of the same “bundle of rights” as an original patent.
• Defended Nautilus in a copyright, trademark, trade dress, and unfair competition (Lanham Act) case in the District of Connecticut regarding Nautilus’s Bowflex products. Obtained dismissal of all claims.

Honors

• Connecticut Law Tribune – "New Leader in the Law" (2019)

News

• Axinn Team Prevails for Alvogen in Suboxone Antitrust Litigation
• Federal Circuit Affirms Axinn’s Trial Victory for Alvogen
• Connecticut Law Tribune Honors Axinn With Two Professional Excellence Awards
• Axinn Obtains Substantial Recovery For Pro Bono Client
• Axinn Leads Alvogen to Victory in Hatch-Waxman Case for Generic Zohydro^®
• Axinn Protects Client Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.’s Approval for Generic Valcyte^®
• Axinn Obtains Fourth Circuit Victory in Generic Celebrex^® Case
• Axinn Successful In Protecting FDA Approval for Client Endo Pharmaceuticals Inc.
• Axinn Wins Preliminary Injunction for WEX Health (formerly known as Evolution1)
• View More ›

Thought Leadership

• Susceptibility of Digital Products to Section 271(g) in the Age of Cloud Computing, Artificial Intelligence, Blockchains, and 3D Printing, The Journal of Robotics, Artificial Intelligence & Law, January 11, 2021
• Quest Integrity v. Cokebusters Puts Cloud-Based Medical Diagnostic Patents at Risk of On-Sale Bar, Medical Device and Diagnostic Industry, February 7, 2020
• Axinn IP Update: No “Single-Entity” Requirement for Section 271(g) Liability, Axinn Update, December 30, 2019
• Fed Circ. Ruling May Affect Eligibility of Life Sciences Patents, Law360, November 21, 2019
• Fed. Circ. Muddies Waters on Method-Of-Treatment Patents, Law360, September 4, 2019
• Method-of-Treatment Patent Eligibility: Step 1 and Done?, Law360, February 5, 2019
• Joint Infringement Post-Akamai Part Two: Decisions Since Akamai and Practice Insights, The Intellectual Property Strategist, February 2017
• Joint Infringement Post-Akamai Part One: Exploring the New Joint Infringement Standard, The Intellectual Property Strategist, January 2017

Education

• JD – University of Virginia School of Law (2013)
• MBA – Union Graduate College (2010) Beta Gamma Sigma Business Honor Society
• BS, Physics and Philosophy, magna cum laude – Union College (2009) Harold A. Larrabee Prize for Excellence in Philosophy

Admissions

• Connecticut
• US District Court District of Connecticut
• US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
• US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
• US Patent and Trademark Office