![[IPWatchdog Logo]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/themes/IPWatchdog%20-%202023/assets/images/temp/logo-small@2x.png){kind=logo}
Anna Whitacre
Associate
Barnes & Thornburg
Anna Whitacre is an Associate with Barnes & Thornburg. Anna engages in high-stakes motion practice for patent, trademark, and copyright infringement cases, including summary judgment motions, motions to dismiss, motions to transfer, motions to stay, and Daubert motions. She also assists in drafting patent owner responses and preliminary responses, as well as expert declarations, for Patent Trial and Appeals Board (PTAB) proceedings.
Prior to joining the firm, Anna practiced at another Am Law 100 firm in Atlanta, where she notably worked on Section 337 investigations related to autonomous vehicle driving hardware and was actively involved in serving and responding to discovery requests, document review, and deposition preparation before the International Trade Commission (ITC). She also worked on various intellectual property matters involving various technologies and spanning numerous jurisdictions, including the Western and Southern Districts of Texas, the Northern District of California, the District of Colorado, the District of Massachusetts, the Middle District of Tennessee, and the Middle District of Florida.
During law school, Anna gained additional knowledge as a judicial extern for a Fortune 500 corporation, where she drafted numerous U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) action responses directed to point-of-sale hardware and software. She also served as a law clerk to the Honorable Thomas Langstaff of the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Georgia and as a law clerk for the Georgia Court of Appeals.
Recent Articles by Anna Whitacre
Beyond Curiosity: Practical Guidance on the Research Exemption and Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor
In several previous articles (1, 2a, 2b), we reviewed key cases on the common law experimental use exemption and the statutory safe harbor under the Hatch Waxman Act. In this last installment, we will provide practical advice on what it takes to successfully invoke the exemptions during litigation or (where possible) avoid litigation entirely. We thus conclude our series of with some practical tips for both patentees and defendants dealing with (A) the common law research exemption and (B) activities “reasonably related” to the development and submission of information under the Hatch-Waxman Act, including an update from the Federal Circuit’s § 271(e)(1) safe harbor jurisprudence.
Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor: Lessons from Recent Court Precedent
We recently wrote an introductory overview of navigating the Common Law Research Exemption and the Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor and an exploration of the application of the Common Law Research Exemption. Here, we take a closer look at the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1), particularly through treatment by the courts over the past decade.
Treading Carefully: How to Navigate the Common Law Research Exemption and the Hatch-Waxman Safe Harbor
When exploring exemptions to patent infringement, there are several key U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit cases to be aware of. First, we will examine a number of cases that have shaped the contours of the common law experimental use exemption, which applies to all industries, and secondly, we will look at recent decisions evaluating activities under the safe harbor of 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(1) for products requiring U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) approval.