Chambers has recognized Cohen & Gresser in its 2020 USA guide for its achievements in General Commercial Litigation and White Collar Crime & Government Investigations. Chambers commentary highlights the firm's "thoroughness, quality, responsiveness, client care and availability,” noting that "the level of service is stellar, the work product is uniformly superb,” and that C&G is "a great firm with high quality across the board."

Chambers also recognized the following individuals: Jonathan S Abernethy for White Collar Crime & Government Investigations; Karen H Bromberg for Intellectual Property: Patent; Mark S Cohen for Securities Litigation and White Collar Crime & Government Investigations; and Lawrence T Gresser for Commercial Litigation.

Managing Intellectual Property has named Karen H Bromberg as a Patent Star and as a Trademark Star in its 2019 IP Stars rankings. IP Stars are private practice IP professionals who have been highly recommended by their peers and clients.

Chambers has again recognized C&G for its excellence in General Commercial Litigation, Securities Litigation, and White Collar Crime & Government Investigations. Chambers notes C&G’s “strong commitment to client service” and “top-quality advice,” labeling the firm as “outstanding.”

Chambers also recognized the following individuals: Jonathan S Abernethy for White Collar Crime & Government Investigations; Karen H Bromberg for Intellectual Property: Patent; and Mark S Cohen for General Commercial Litigation, Securities Litigation, and White Collar Crime & Government Investigations.

Managing Intellectual Property has named Karen H Bromberg as a Patent Star and as a Trademark Star in its 2018 IP Stars rankings. IP Stars are private practice IP professionals who have been highly recommended by their peers and clients.

Chambers has recognized Cohen & Gresser in its 2018 USA guide. The firm is recognized for its excellence in General Commercial Litigation, Securities Litigation, and White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations.

Chambers notes that C&G is "a very high-quality firm" with "very smart, very capable people who are very dedicated to their clients," and that C&G attorneys "have great judgment and are excellent lawyers."

Chambers also recognized the following individuals:

Jonathan S Abernethy for White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations, Karen H Bromberg for Intellectual Property: Patent, and Mark S Cohen for Securities Litigation and for White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations.

Managing Intellectual Property has named Karen H Bromberg, Damir Cefo, and Gurpreet (Ray) Walia as Patent Stars in its 2017 IP Stars ranking.  Karen was also selected as a 2017 Trademark Star.  IP Stars are private practice intellectual professionals who have been highly recommended by their peers and clients.  

We are pleased to announce that the firm and four of its partners are recognized in the 2016 Chambers USA legal directory. This year's directory recognizes the firm in White Collar Crime & Government Investigations, Securities Litigation, and Patents. Read more

Each year, Managing Intellectual Property magazine ranks top IP firms and lawyers in its annual IP Stars ranking guide. This year, the guide recognized three C&G attorneys as 2016 IP Stars. 

Read more

Amazon is looking into moving to patent technology that would allow shoppers to use live selfies to complete purchases. Privacy attorneys, including C&G's Karen Bromberg, weigh in on this issue in a recent Law360 article. 

Each year, Managing Intellectual Property magazine ranks top IP firms and lawyers in its annual IP Stars ranking guide.  For the second year in a row, the guide ranked Cohen & Gresser as being recommended in the Patent Contentious category, and Karen Bromberg, partner and chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property and Technology group, was named an IP Star for Counselling, Licensing, and Patent Litigation. Additionally, Dr. Gurpreet (Ray) Walia has been recognized as an IP Star in Patent Litigation, Patent Opinion, and Patent Strategy and Counseling category. 

On Monday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a ruling in Kimble v. Marvel Enterprises that leaves intact a 50-year-old rule barring royalty agreements that continue after a patent expires. C&G's Damir Cefo and other attorneys weigh in on why the decision is significant.

Cohen & Gresser has been ranked as a "Recommended" New York law firm in the 2015 edition of Benchmark Litigation.   In addition to the firm’s ranking, partners Mark S Cohen, Lawrence T Gresser, C Evan Stewart, and Karen H Bromberg were all individually recognized by the publication.  Benchmark Litigation is a leading guide to top litigation firms and attorneys in the United States and bases its rankings on extensive face-to-face interviews around the country over a six-month period with the nation's leading private practice attorneys and in-house counsel. 

Each year, Managing Intellectual Property magazine ranks top IP firms and lawyers in its annual IP Stars ranking guide.  This year, the guide ranked Cohen & Gresser as being recommended in the Patent Contentious category, and Karen Bromberg, partner and chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property and Technology group, was named an IP Star for 2014. 

The U.S. Supreme Court recently ruled that users of generic drugs cannot bring state-law design defect claims against generics makers because the manufacturers cannot change a drug's design under federal law. Walia notes, "The decision reaffirms the fundamental principle of the Hatch-Waxman Act: Generic manufacturers must follow FDA requirements for pharmaceutical compositions and labels. A manufacturer of generic drugs cannot change a generic drug's design or labeling under federal law, and therefore should not be penalized for following federal law."

Originally appeared in the Intellectual Property ALM Special Supplement 

The past few months have shed some light on the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s approach to estoppel in post-grant proceedings, which applies to final written decisions on a claim-by-claim basis. Moreover, estoppel applies not only when a petitioner, or a real party in interest or privy of the petitioner, raised the arguments in a prior IPR or PGR proceeding, but also when he/she “reasonably could have raised” them. 

In this article, Dr. Walia suggests that the Federal Circuit appears to be leaning toword a more flexible approach in terms of pharmaceutical patens, as evidenced in recent decisions. 

Obviousness type double patenting (ODP), or non-statutory double patenting, is a judicially created doctrine meant to prevent a party from extending an earlier commonly owned patent’s term by claiming patentably indistinct subject matter through claims in a later patent. An ODP rejection of the second patent application with indistinct patentable claims can be overcome by filing a terminal disclaimer as long as both patents are commonly owned or a joint research agreement exists for both patents.

Inter Partes Review (IPR) is conducted at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) to review the patentability of claims only on the basis of anticipation and obviousness based only on patents or printed publications. So far, more than 70 percent of petitions have resulted in instituting of an IPR. This article discusses best practices for petitioning for an IPR and how it can be a very attractive route for potentially invalidating patent claims for generics which do not have the 180-day market exclusivity incentive

In Actavis, the Supreme Court declined to hold these agreements presumptively anticompetitive as advocated by the FTC or apply the scope-of-the-patent test, but held that such agreements should be reviewed by the rule-of-reason antitrust standard. This article discusses the implications of this decision. 

In Hatch-Waxman litigation, the filing of an ANDA seeking approval to market a pharmaceutical product before the expiration of patents covering that product is a technical act of infringement sufficient to establish jurisdiction to resolve the issues of patent infringement and validity in litigation. This article examines the litigation that follows the ANDA filing by considering whether the product that is likely to be sold would infringe the patent.

In affirming the district court’s award of attorneys’ fees, the Federal Circuit agreed with the district court that the patent holder’s failure to “produce admissible evidence of infringement” rendered the case exceptional, historically a very high bar for prevailing defendants to meet. However, in reaching this decision, the Federal Circuit relied upon two recent U.S. Supreme Court decisions, Octane Fitness, LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc. and Highmark, Inc. v. Allcare Health Mgmt. Sys., Inc., both of which significantly relaxed the standard for what is deemed an “exceptional case” under § 285.

The article provides an analysis of recent remarks by Assistant Attorney General Stuart Delery, in which the AAG described the government’s approach to enforcement actions targeting off-label promotion of drugs and devices.  Considering the AAG’s remarks along with recent FDA draft guidance on the distribution of scientific literature, the article focuses on the effect that First Amendment concerns, intensified by recent case law developments, may have had on the way in which the government investigates cases, evaluates evidence, and develops and presents its theories of liability in off-label cases.

A patent on cloning human stem cells was issued recently by the U.S. Patent Office to a disgraced scientist who had admitted to fabricating his results. Despite appearances, however, the issuance of this patent is not a glaring mistake on the part of the USPTO, nor is it certain that the patent was obtained by fraud or should be held invalid. As long as the inventor was scrupulously honest in his dealings with the USPTO, he may be entitled to the monopoly rights granted to him.

In March of 2016, C&G's Damir Cefo spoke at the annual AIPPI Conference in Tel Aviv about building a powerful U.S. portfolio. 

• What factors of patent eligibility does the Alice ruling not address
• Applying Alice from the perspective of the patent defendant