Erin M. Dunston
BIPC Logo

Erin M. Dunston

Shareholder

IP Litigation Group Co-Chair

Alexandria, VA
 
 
 
  • Erin's representative inter partes reviews before the PTAB include:
    • Maverick Sports Medicine, Inc. v. Implus Footcare, LLC, IPR2016-01227
    • 3Shape Medical A/S v. Sirona Dental Systems GmbH, IPR2016-00481
    • Stage Technologies, Inc. v. Olaf Sööt Design, LLC, IPR2015-00116
    • Stage Technologies, Inc. v. Olaf Sööt Design, LLC, IPR2015-00117
    • Laird Technologies, Inc. v. GrafTech International Holdings, Inc., IPR2014-00023
    • Laird Technologies, Inc. v. GrafTech International Holdings, Inc., IPR2014-00024
    • Laird Technologies, Inc. v. GrafTech International Holdings, Inc., IPR2014-00025
    • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Monsanto Technology, IPR2014-00331
    • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Monsanto Technology, IPR2014-00332
    • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Monsanto Technology,IPR2014-00333
    • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Monsanto Technology, IPR2014-00334
    • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Monsanto Technology, IPR2014-00335
  • Erin's representative interference matters include:
    • The Broad Institute, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California, Interference 106,048 (Crispr Cas9), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Zieler v. Ananiev, Interference No. 105,989 (artificial plant minichromosomes), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Rozbicki v. Chiang, Interference No. 105,898 (methods for depositing diffusion barriers), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Dung v. Buehler, Interference No. 105,893 (analgesics), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Tobinick v. Olmarker, Interference No. 105,866 (methods for treating nerve disorders mediated by nucleus pulposus using TNF-α inhibitors), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Zinn v. Powers, Interference No. 105,860 (venous access port assemblies), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Olmarker v. Le, Interference No. 105,842 (methods for treating nerve disorders mediated by nucleus pulposus using TNF-α inhibitors), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Merten v. Franchina, Interference No. 105,804 (fluorochemicals), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
    • CSIRO and Bayer BioScience N.V. v. Carnegie Institute of Washington and the University of Massachusetts, Interference No. 105,754 (inhibiting gene expression using RNAi), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Kawahara v. Abraham, Interference No. 105,696 (non-nutrative sweeteners), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
    • Short v. Patten, Interference No. 105,532 (methods and compositions for polypeptide engineering), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
    • Browning v. Yu, Interference No. 105,485 (methods for inhibiting B lymphocytes), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
    • Howell v. Lentz, Interference No. 105,413 (methods of enhancing immune responses by removing sTNFR1), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
    • DeLucas v. Santarsiero, Interference No. 105,403 (methods for performing microarrays of protein crystallizations), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
    • Sehgal v. Revel, Interference No. 105,304 (interferon β-2, IL-6), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
    • Sehgal v. Revel, Interference No. 105,303 (interferon β-2, IL-6), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
    • Sehgal v. Revel, Interference No. 105,302 (interferon β-2, IL-6), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
    • Sehgal v. Revel, Interference No. 105,293 (interferon β-2, IL-6), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
    • Short v. Punnonen, Interference No. 105,188 (non-stochastic generation of genetic vaccines), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
    • Genencor v. Novozymes, Interference No. 105,155 (detergent compositions comprising fungal cellulases), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
    • Wang v. Murakawa, Interference No. 105,055 (quantitative PCR), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
    • Deen v. Ni, Interference No. 104,784 (TNF-1), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
    • University of Washington v. Eli Lilly & Co., Interference No. 104,733 (vitamin K-dependent serine proteases), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
    • Noelle v. Lederman, Interference No. 104,415 (CD40CR monoclonal antibodies), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
    • Slaikeu v. Onishi, Interference No. 103,993 (catheter technology to prevent watermelon seeding), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
    • Talieh v. Demaray, Interference No. 103,629 (collimated plasma sputtering), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences
  • Erin's representative litigation matters include:
    • In re Commonwealth Scientific & Indus. Research Org., Case No. 2014-1710 (interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(1)), United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2015 WL 7423624)
    • Loughlin v. Ling, Case No. 2011-1432 (interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(2)), United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (reported at 684 F.3d 1289)
    • Ethox Chemicals, LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co., Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-01682-KFM (D.S.C.) (action requesting that inventorship be corrected and pursuing related claims)
    • In re Brimonidine Patent Litigation, 643 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011), 666 F. Supp.2d 429 (D. Del. 2009) — Representing Exela PharmSci., Inc. in a patent infringement action under the Hatch-Waxman Act brought by Allergan regarding brimonidine tartrate used to lower intra-ocular pressure and alleviate glaucoma; Federal Circuit finding of no infringement.
    • Brassica Protection Products LLC and The Johns Hopkins University v. Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54135 (Southern District of New York) — Represented Brassica in a patent infringement case regarding chemoprotective cruciferous extracts.
    • University of Pittsburgh of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education v. Marc H. Hedrick et al., Civil Action No. 2:04-cv-9014 (Central District of California June 9, 2008) — Represented co-inventors of adipose-derived stem cells from the Regents of the University of California in action to correct inventorship.
    • Enzo Therapeutics, Inc. v. Yeda Research & Dev. Co., 467 F. Supp.2d 579, 477 F. Supp.2d 699 (Eastern District of Virginia 2006, 2007) — Represented Yeda Research and Development Co. in a 146 Action involving interferon-β2.
    • Rhodia Chimie and Rhodia Inc. v. PPG Industries, Inc., 402 F.3d 1371 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit 2005) — Represented Rhodia Chimie and Rhodia Inc. in a patent infringement action concerning precipitated silica.
    • Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18361 (Southern District Court of Indiana) — Represented Lilly in patent infringement action under the Hatch-Waxman Act, finding defendants to have willfully infringed Lilly's patent covering Nizatidine and the product AXID®.
    • Novo Nordisk A/S v. Eli Lilly & Co., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18690 (District of Delaware) — Represented Eli Lilly in a declaratory judgment action by a competitor for non-infringement and invalidity of Lilly's patent on the rapid-acting human insulin analog formulation, insulin lispro [rDNA origin] and the product Humalog®.