Ted Mathias focuses on trying patent cases. In the last two years, he tried two cases to judgment and served as lead counsel in a case involving 33 patents that settled favorably on the eve of trial. Ted has litigated patent cases and handled successful appeals to the Federal Circuit in the areas of medical devices, pharmaceuticals, mechanical devices, e-commerce and software. Clients frequently turn to him for guidance on patent remedies and competition issues that arise in connection with patent disputes.
Ted has served as lead counsel in commercial disputes and litigated sham litigation, standards setting, patent pooling and IP licensing issues, other Sherman Act claims, insurance coverage and environmental claims. In addition to major trial work, he has represented clients in private dispute resolution proceedings, mediations and government investigations concerning antitrust, unfair competition, false advertising and Internet privacy issues.
- Chair of the § 102/103 Subcommittee of the American Bar Association's Intellectual Property Litigation Section
- Former Chair of the Willful Infringement Subcommittee of the American Bar Association's Intellectual Property Litigation Section
- Former Chair of the Damages Subcommittee of the American Bar Association's Intellectual Property Litigation Section
- Serves on the Board of Advisors for Capitol Squash, an urban squash and education program
- Obtained a $16 million jury verdict on behalf of medical device maker DePuy Synthes Products, LLC, a Johnson & Johnson company. Took the lead role in presenting the damages evidence, examining both parties' damages experts and multiple fact witnesses. The jury found that all asserted claims of three patents were valid and infringed, and awarded the 15% royalty that DePuy Synthes requested.
- Obtained summary judgment of no lost profits on an $800 million lost profits claim in a trade secret case.
- Defended pharmaceutical client in a multi-billion dollar patent claim, and obtained a favorable settlement after two weeks of trial.
- Successfully opposed a Motion for Preliminary Injunction, enabling a major pharmaceutical manufacturer to launch its generic drug product.
- Obtained a summary judgment ruling of non-infringement in a patent case on behalf of a software developer and successfully defended the judgment on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
- Represented two software developers in an appeal to the Federal Circuit from an adverse judgment and a permanent injunction in a patent case involving municipal bond auctions, and successfully obtained a stay of the injunction and reversal of the judgment.
- Represented a steel fabricator in a Federal Circuit appeal from an adverse judgment and a permanent injunction in a patent case involving segmented truck covers and successfully obtained a stay of the injunction, a stay of execution on the judgment and a waiver of the supersedeas bond requirement.
- Acted as lead counsel on behalf of a water treatment company in a breach of contract arbitration, and obtained a favorable settlement.
- Examined liability expert and obtained a favorable post-trial settlement in an institutional reform litigation brought on behalf of a plaintiff class of detained and committed youth.
- First Place, American Bar Association Antitrust Student Writing Competition
- Benchmark Litigation – CT Litigation Star: Intellectual Property (2020)
- Federal Circuit Affirms Axinn’s Trial Victory for Alvogen
- The 2020 Edition of Benchmark Litigation has selected Axinn as a “Recommended Firm” and named four Axinn partners as IP “Litigation Stars” in CT and DC
- Axinn Leads Alvogen to Victory in Hatch-Waxman Case for Generic Zohydro®
- Axinn Wins Unanimous Fourth Circuit Victory for Stanley Black & Decker
- Axinn Wins Summary Judgment for Stanley Black & Decker
- Entire Market Value Rule Vs. 'Convoyed Sales' Rule
- Axinn Wins $16 Million Damages Award for Medical Device Client at Jury Trial in Delaware
- Axinn Assisted Actavis in Resolving Ten-Year-Old Dispute with Pfizer
- View More ›
- Axinn IP Update: District Court Retains Subject Matter Jurisdiction But Grants Dismissal After Paragraph III Conversion, Axinn Update, July 8, 2020
- Old Drug, New Tricks? How the BPCIA Could Increase Generic Competition for Insulins, BioProcess Online / Biosimilar Development, June 23, 2020
- Axinn Patent Attorneys Talk ACA Pushback and the BPCIA, The Center for Biosimilars, May 4, 2020
- Insulin Under the BPCIA: Opportunities and Obstacles, Biosimilar Development, April 22, 2020
- Axinn IP Update: Six Patents Directed to Humanized Monoclonal Antibodies Fall at PTAB, Axinn Update, February 27, 2020
- What ACA's Uncertain Future Means for Biologics Patents, Law360, February 27, 2020
- Life Sciences Cases to Watch in 2020, Law360, January 1, 2020
- Axinn IP Update: Federal Circuit Addresses BPCIA Safe Harbor, Damages, Axinn Update, December 19, 2019
- Fed Circ. Ruling May Affect Eligibility of Life Sciences Patents, Law360, November 21, 2019
- Can the FDA Salvage Interchangeable Follow-On Biologics?, BioProcess Online / Biosimilar Development, November 19, 2019
- Axinn IP Update: Section 287(c) Immunity Has Its Limits, Axinn Update, November 18, 2019
- Axinn IP Update: No Collateral Estoppel after PTAB Ruling on IPR, Axinn Update, October 9, 2019
- Failure to Launch: The Patent Thicket Delay of US Biosimilars, Law360, October 9, 2019
- Axinn IP Update: PTAB Abused its Discretion in Denying Patentee Leave to Correct Chain of Priority, Axinn Update, October 4, 2019
- Axinn IP Update: Federal Circuit Says Method of Treatment Claims Are Not Per Se Eligible Under Section 101, Axinn Update, August 29, 2019
- A Hard Choice for Abbreviated Biologics License Applicants, Law360, February 4, 2019
- Axinn IP Update: Federal Circuit Affirms No Public Use Via Implied Confidentiality, Axinn Update, January 30, 2019
- Patent Dance Developments: A Tale of 2 Antibodies, Law360, October 26, 2018
- The CRISPR Tug of War, IPWatchdog, August 17, 2018
- Supreme Court Makes it Much Harder for Patent Trolls to Sue in East Texas, Ars Technica, May 22, 2017
- After-Developed Defenses Still Relevant After Halo, Law360, July 15, 2016
- SCOTUS Decision Could Affect Patent Disputes Between Medical Device Makers, Advisory Board, June 15, 2016
- Supreme Court Decision Could Ease Wins for Devicemakers in Patent Cases, Modern Healthcare, June 13, 2016
- Section 101 Requires Something More . . . But How Much More?, The Report, Fall 2015
- Mega Damages In Peril After Fed. Circ. Nixes Apple Verdict, Law360, September 19, 2014
- Entire Market Value Rule Vs. 'Convoyed Sales' Rule, Law360, April 7, 2014
- Should The Entire Market Value Rule Apply To Lost Profits?, Law360, November 5, 2013
- Growing Pains: The Seagate Standard After Powell v. Home Depot, April 5, 2012
- Use of License Agreements to Determine Reasonable Royalties, March 30, 2012
- Heightened Standard For The Entire Market Value Rule?, Law360, August 3, 2011
- Big League Perestroika? The Implications of Fraser v. Major League Soccer, University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 1999
- Squeeze Play: Will Baseball’s Economic Problems Cause More Legal Headaches for the National Pastime?, Sports Lawyers Journal, 1998
- Centerforce IP Strategy Virtual Summit: COVID-19 & Beyond
- 2020 Festival of Biologics USA
- 2019 Centerforce 8th Annual IP Strategy Summit - NYC
- Navigating Patent Thickets in BPCIA Litigation
- Festival of Biologics
- 2019 Festival of Biologics USA
- 2018 World Biosimilar Congress Europe
- Centerforce 4th Annual IP Strategy Summit - Boston
- Magna’s Mock Crisis; Part III
- Operating Company vs Operating Company Litigation: A Proactive Defense
- Aligning Your Enforcement Strategy with Business Goals
- Willful Infringement Before and After Powell v. Home Depot
- The Bar Gets Higher: Royalty Damages After Uniloc
- How Much Is That Patent Worth?
- Pitfalls in Royalty Calculations after Lucent and ResQNet
- JD – magna cum laude, University of Pennsylvania School of Law School (2000) Order of the Coif
- MS – University of Massachusetts, Amherst (1997)
- BA – Amherst College (1992)
- District of Columbia
- New York
- US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
- US District Court District of Columbia