A patent trial lawyer with over two decades of experience, Jonathan Harris focuses his practice on patent litigation and contested Patent Office proceedings. Clients describe Jonathan as "an excellent patent analyst" and "skilled at translating complex technical subjects into English." Jonathan has worked with industry leaders such as Actavis (now Teva), Johnson & Johnson, Par (now Endo), Thermo Fisher and Unilever. He has successfully litigated and tried cases involving products worth billions of dollars.
With experience in both patent litigation and prosecution, Jonathan seeks to separate the strongest from the weakest positions early in each case. His approach narrows cases to what really matters at trial and helps identify unique and defensible positions others might not have considered.
Given his focus on clients’ business objectives and having earned an MBA, Jonathan also tries to see the bigger picture of every matter — not only from a legal, but also a commercial perspective. Jonathan prides himself on counseling clients to reduce litigation risk and craft business resolutions through effective pre-trial strategies. He also regularly provides advice on pre-litigation matters, prepares patent licenses and conducts IP due diligence.
Outside the firm, Jonathan co-founded the Janet Bond Arterton IP Inn of Court. He has also tried cases for the Commission on Human Rights and Opportunities on a pro bono basis.
- KVK-Tech, Inc. v. Shire PLC, IPR 2018-00290 (2018) Represented KVK in successful petition to institute inter partes review.
- Eli Lilly & Co. et al. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., No. 16:cv-01119 (E.D. Va.) Defended Actavis in patent infringement action over a method of treatment with the active pharmaceutical ingredient tadalafil (Cialis®).
- Duchesnay Inc. et al. v. Actavis Labs FL, Inc., No. 14-cv-00912 (D. Del.) Defended Actavis in patent infringement action over a formulation containing the active pharmaceutical ingredients doxylamine succinate and pyridoxine hydrochloride (Diclegis®).
- Par Sterile Products, LLC v. Hospira, Inc., No. 13-cv-07460 (C.D. Cal.) Represented Par in false advertising action over active pharmaceutical ingredient epinephrine (Adrenalin®).
- Procter & Gamble Co. v. Conopco, Inc., No. 13-cv732 (S.D. Oh.) Defended Conopco in this patent infringement action over shampoo compositions.
- Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Actavis LLC, No. 13-cv-010208 (D.N.J.) Defending Actavis in this patent infringement action over the active pharmaceutical ingredient zoledronic acid (Zometa®). Successfully assisted in defeating a request for a Temporary Restraining Order. Settled.
- Synthes USA, LLC et al. v. Globus Medical, Inc., No. 11-cv-00652 (D. Del.) Assisted in Synthes’ successful enforcement of several patents relating to spinal implant devices. Jury verdict in favor of Synthes.
- Program Rewards Solutions, LLC v. Citigroup Inc., No. 11-cv-6438 (S.D.N.Y.) Defended Citigroup in a patent action over a patent directed to computerized systems and methods for enabling discounts from goods and service providers. Settled.
- Abbott Laboratories, Inc. et al. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC et al., No. 10-cv-02352 (D.N.J.) Defended Actavis Elizabeth LLC in a patent action over a patent directed to the active pharmaceutical ingredient choline fenofibrate (Trilipix®). Settled.
- Pfizer Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al., No. 09-0307 (D. Del.) Defended Actavis Elizabeth LLC in a patent action over three patents directed to the active pharmaceutical ingredient pregabalin (Lyrica®) and methods of use. At a Markman Hearing, Jonathan successfully argued claim construction on behalf of six co-defendants. Finding of literal non-infringement based on claim construction.
- Medacist Solutions Group LLC v. Pandora Data Systems, Inc., No. 07-0692 (D. Conn.) Defended Pandora Data Systems in a patent action by Medacist Solutions over a patent directed to computer software and systems for preventing drug diversion in the hospital setting. Settled.
- Elan Corp. PLC. v Actavis South Atlantic, LLC., No. 07-0679 (D. Del.) Defended Actavis South Atlantic in a patent action over two patents directed to controlled release formulations containing an isomer of the active pharmaceutical ingredient methylphenidate (Focalin XR®). Settled.
- Celgene Corp. v. Abrika Pharmaceuticals, Inc, No. 06-5818 (D.N.J.) Defended Abrika Pharmaceuticals in a patent action over three patents directed to controlled release methylphenidate (Ritalin LA®) formulations for treating ADHD. Settled.
- Zanfel Laboratories, Inc. v. Cade Laboratories, LLC, No. 06-0348 (W.D. Mich.) Represented patentee Zanfel Laboratories in enforcing a patent directed to the use of topical compositions in the treatment of poison ivy. Defeated five motions for summary judgment of invalidity and enforceability. Settled.
- Cushion Technologies, LLC v. Adidas Solomon North America, Inc. et al., No. 06-0347 (E.D. Tex.) Defended Fila USA, Inc. in a patent action over a patent directed to cushioning springs used in athletic footwear. Settled.
- PSN Illinois, LLC v. Oil-Dri Corporation Of America, No. 04-0915 (N.D. Ill.) Defended Oil-Dri in a patent action over two patents directed to particulate compositions used in animal litter. Settled.
- Quickie Manufacturing Corp. v. The Libman Company, No. 04-2229 (C.D. Ill.) Represented patentee Quickie in enforcing a patent directed to an enhanced wringing mechanism for use with butterfly mops. Settled.
- Ondeo Nalco Company v. Eka Chemical, Inc., No. 01-0537 (D. Del.) Defended Ondeo Nalco in a declaratory judgment patent action over three patents directed to colloidal silica compositions used in papermaking. Settled after a mistrial.
- The Libman Company v. Quickie Manufacturing Corp., No. 00-2279 (C.D. Ill.) Successfully represented patentee Quickie in a declaratory judgment action over a patent directed to a locking device used on cleaning implements. Verdict in favor of patentee. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision in favor of Quickie on appeal.
- Polyclad Laminates Inc. v. MacDermid Corp., No. 99-0162 (D.N.H.) Defended MacDermid in a patent action over a patent directed to specialized adhesives used in the manufacture of printed circuit boards. MacDermid prevailed on its motion for summary judgment of non-infringement.
- Axinn Partners Named to Best Lawyers 2020
- Axinn Attorneys Named in Super Lawyers 2018
- Nine Axinn Partners Named to Best Lawyers 2019
- Axinn Attorneys Named in Super Lawyers 2017
- Eight Axinn Partners Named to the 2018 List of Best Lawyers in America
- Axinn Attorneys Named in Super Lawyers 2016
- Axinn Files Petitions for IPR Challenging Patents on Biogen’s Biologic Drug Tysabri
- Axinn Attorneys Named in Super Lawyers 2015
- Axinn Attorneys Named in Super Lawyers 2014
- Axinn Partners Named New England Super Lawyers and "Rising Stars" 2011
- Axinn Partners Named Connecticut "Rising Stars" 2011/2012
- Jonathan Harris Presents on Follow-on Biologics in San Francisco
- On July 19-20, Jonathan Harris Presents on Follow-on Biologics in Boston
- Jonathan Harris Presents on Inventorship and Prior Conception in New York City
- On June 3, 2010, Jonathan Harris Speaks on In Re Rosuvastatin Litigation
- Axinn Serving as Patent Counsel for ADHD and Pain Relief Medications
- View More ›
- Axinn IP Update: Prosecution Counsel Beware: Statutory Bars and Inequitable Conduct, Axinn Update, March 19, 2020
- 2018 Year-End Roundup of Federal Circuit Obviousness Decisions in Biopharma, Westlaw Journal Pharmaceutical, April 9, 2019
- 2017 Federal Circuit Obviousness Decisions in Biopharma: 5 Takeaways, Westlaw Journal, April 17, 2018
- Data Analytics to Identify Hot Spots in Obviousness Challenges, Inside Counsel, February 29, 2016
- Obviousness Trends: Get the Edge, Intellectual Property Magazine, June 2015
- When NPEs Target the Medical Device Industry, Corporate Counsel, February 4, 2014
- Obviousness in Medical Device Patent Litigation, Corporate Counsel, September 16, 2013
- Federal Circuit Issues Key Ruling on Induced Patent Infringement, June 27, 2013
- Five Things Every Biotech Company Must Know About Biosimilars, International BioPharm, June 6, 2010
- Making it Easier to Win Patent Infringement Suits, Connecticut Law Tribune, October 12, 2009
- Federal Circuit Obviousness Vs. SCOTUS Precedent, Law360, August 20, 2009
- The Nanotech Researcher's Dilemma: Patent or Perish?, Small Times, November 1, 2006
- 35 USC 112 Patent Specifications – CAFC Decisions on Disclosure and Claiming
- The Impact of Artificial Intelligence on the Law: Using Analytics and AI to Streamline Complex Litigations and Investigations
- Managing Your IP Spend: Containing Costs and Maintaining Quality
- KSR and 103: Tools You Can Use?
- Anatomy of a PTO PTAB Patent Trial
- Going To Trial: Enforcement Focused Strategies
- ACI 7th Annual Paragraph IV Disputes Conference
- Litigation and Prosecution Perspectives on The Obviousness of Medical Devices
- Claim Construction in the Pharmaceutical Industry
- Prior Art and Obviousness 2011: Current Trends in Sections 102 & 103
- Biosimilars and Biointerchangeables
- Inventorship & Priority of Invention
- Paragraph IV Patent Litigation in Re Rosuvastatin Litigation
- ACI Maximizing Pharmaceutical Patent Life Cycles Conference
- Generic Pharmaceutical Association's (GphA) Annual Meeting
- Bioequivalence in Paragraph IV Patent Infringement Litigation
- Practical Guidelines for Assessing the Doctrine of Equivalence and Invalidity in Patent Opinion Writing
- JD, cum laude – University of Connecticut School of Law (1998)
- MBA, cum laude – University of Connecticut School of Business (1998)
- BS – Duke University (1994)
- US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- US District Court District of Connecticut
- US District Court Central District of Illinois
- US District Court Northern District of Illinois
- US Patent and Trademark Office
What Clients Have to Say:
“Great in the courtroom. Quick on his feet and highly skilled at translating complex technical subjects into English.”
“Excellent patent analyst with an encyclopedic knowledge of Federal Circuit case law.”
“Personable. On time. Brings insightful analysis from both a prosecution and litigation perspective.”