Chad Landmon Image

Chad Landmon

Partner, Chair, IP and FDA Practice Groups

Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider

Chad Landmon Chairs Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider’s Intellectual Property and Food and Drug Administration Practice Groups and focuses his practice on patent litigation and counseling and food and drug law, with an emphasis on pharmaceuticals, biologics, medical devices, and human tissue products. He maintains a particular focus on patent trial work, having served as a first chair trial lawyer on multiple cases and having litigated over 50 cases during the past 10 years alone, many of which have included products with billions of dollars in annual sales. He was recently selected as a National Law Journal Health Care/Life Sciences Trailblazer, ranked by IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals and has been named a Life Sciences Star by LMG Life Sciences since 2019 for his exemplary work in combining patent litigation skills with the ability to maneuver through the complicated FDA regulatory regime.

Chad’s FDA matters involve petitioning FDA and litigating issues relating to marketing exclusivities, patent listing, certification and notification requirements, bioequivalence, labeling, and other issues relevant to the FDA drug approval process. His active FDA litigation practice has enabled clients to maintain their marketing exclusivity rights and obtain market entry. In fact, Chad led the efforts to obtain a court order that has been described as the first time a court has ordered FDA to approve a product.

Recent Articles by Chad Landmon

Key U.S. District Court Cases with Implications for IP in the New Year

Although the proceedings before federal district courts may not garner as much attention as those of the U.S. Court of appeals for the Federal Circuit or the Supreme Court, they can be an important proving ground for the decisions rendered by those courts. And 2023 was no exception to that rule. As discussed below, the Zogenix v. Apotex and Teva v. Eli Lilly decisions provide a glimpse into what litigants can expect in the aftermath of the GSK v. Teva and Amgen v. Sanofi decisions, respectively. These cases will have an especially significant impact on the life sciences industry, and watching how these decisions are applied by the district courts should be a priority for practitioners in this space.

U.S. Government Patent Enforcement: A Ripple or a Coming Tempest?

In most respects, the widely reported patent complaint recently filed against Gilead is perfectly ordinary. It was filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, the most common venue for patent infringement lawsuits, and alleged that a pharmaceutical company’s drug sales infringed the plaintiff’s patents on uses of the sold drug. The defendant’s response has so far been similarly unexceptional:  Gilead has filed petitions for Inter Partes Review (IPR) of each asserted patent (see links below), arguing that those patents are invalid over the prior art, either as obvious or as entirely anticipated. What is remarkable about this lawsuit, however, is that the plaintiff is the government of the United States.