Irena Royzman Image

Irena Royzman

Partner

Partner at Orrick

Irena Royzman is a Partner at Orrick.

Irena Royzman concentrates on pharmaceutical and biotech patent litigation and proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board for biopharma innovators. Irena holds a Ph.D. in biology from MIT and the Whitehead Institute, where she was a NSF fellow. She represents plaintiffs and defendants in some of the most complex pharmaceutical and biotech patent cases.

Irena has litigated a wide range of subject matters, including small molecules, biologics, recombinant DNA technology, gene therapy, gene editing, manufacturing processes, formulations and drug-eluting medical devices. Irena has significant experience in litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act and the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA).

For plaintiffs, Irena has successfully defended generic challenges to patents protecting blockbuster medical therapies, including multi-billion dollar cancer, antiviral and anti-psychotic drugs. She has also represented an innovator in some of the first cases under the BPCIA, including the first involving an antibody. For defendants, she defeated a $530 million claim of patent infringement of a competitor’s biotech patent, obtaining dismissal of all claims and discovery sanctions against the patent owner. In another high-stakes case, she obtained summary judgment of noninfringement and exclusion of plaintiff’s experts under Daubert as well as a full award of attorneys’ fees.

A registered patent attorney, Irena also handles inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. For patent owners, she has obtained denial of IPR for patents protecting blockbuster drugs and has leveraged IPR for defendants to obtain freedom to operate.

Irena also coordinates U.S. proceedings with parallel ex-U.S. litigation and proceedings in foreign patent offices, recently obtaining freedom to operate for a biotech innovator’s gene therapy. She provides strategic counseling in biologics and pharmaceuticals and advises clients on their IP portfolios and transactions. Irena also represents clients in high-stakes license disputes involving biotech patents, and, in a dispute concerning the use of a recombinant protein as an enzyme replacement therapy, obtained one of the largest settlement awards over the life of the contract.

Chambers USA has recognized Irena as a leading lawyer in intellectual property, where clients have described her “excellent,” “knowledgeable, aggressive” and “an incredibly smart lawyer.” Benchmark Litigation named her one of the “Top 250 Women in Litigation” for the last six years and a litigation star in intellectual property in New York. Irena was also named to the Crain’s New York Business 2021 list of Notable Women in Law.

Irena writes and lectures widely on patent issues. She has been principal counsel on amicus briefs to the United States Supreme Court in some of the most important cases for the biotech and pharmaceutical industry. Irena also is frequently quoted on patent-related issues, including in the Washington Post, Financial Times, Nature Biotechnology and Pink Sheet.

Recent Articles by Irena Royzman

The AIA does not restrict judicial review of a final written decision

The AIA and its legislative history do not provide clear and convincing evidence that Congress intended ultra vires agency action by the PTO in holding claims unpatentable to be exempt from judicial review on appeal from a final written decision in an IPR. The Supreme Court should make clear that if the PTO holds claims unpatentable on grounds not set forth in the petition, then that ultra vires conduct is subject to judicial review, not exempt from it.

Will SCOTUS Provide Guidance on Judicial Review and Claim Construction for IPR Proceedings?

The NYIPLA asks the Court to grant the petition in order to make clear that judicial review is available when the PTO institutes an IPR proceeding and invalidates patent claims in violation of its statutory authority, and to determine the claim construction standard that the PTO should apply to determine patent validity. The NYIPLA explains that the Supreme Court’s review of both questions is critical at this juncture since to a large and increasing extent, IPRs are supplanting district court litigation as the forum for resolving issues of patent validity based on the prior art, and in proceedings below the Panel was split 2-1 with a vigorous dissent on both issues, and the Federal Circuit then split 6-5 in denying a petition for rehearing en banc.