Jonathan E. Singer

Singer studied chemistry and math as a college undergraduate, then went into commercial litigation after law school. At an early point in his now-28-year career, a law firm partner noticed his resume and assigned him to help with a patent case. He was hooked.

He now leads Fish & Richardson's life sciences litigation practice, where he helps clients resolve patent infringement issues over key drugs for diseases like hepatitis C, glaucoma, heart failure and hypertension.

"Litigation can be a grind," he said of two recent matters that took years and included trips to the U.S. Supreme Court. In both cases, Singer was able to defeat opponents' cert petitions, preserving wins for clients Gilead Sciences Inc. and Mayo Collaborative Services LLC.

"But the grind is interesting," Singer said. "The people involved make it worthwhile and the new discoveries keep things fascinating."

In January, the high court refused to grant cert in a litigation foe's effort to reinstate a $2.5 billion jury verdict. Earlier, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit had also rejected the bid, supporting Singer's argument that Gilead's landmark hepatitis C drugs were not liable for infringement of a plaintiff's patent.

The panel found the patent was invalid for lack of enablement because it didn't adequately explain how to manufacture the treatment involved.

That ruling followed what some have called one of the biggest litigation comebacks of all time, when Singer argued and won a judgment as a matter of law motion that reversed the big jury award, which -- had it stood -- would have represented the largest patent damages award in history. Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Gilead Sciences Inc., 2018-1691 (Fed. Cir., filed Oct. 30, 2019); 20-380 (S. Ct., cert. denied Jan. 19, 2021).

Singer led the effort on the jury verdict reversal and partnered with Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP on the appeals.

"The Federal Circuit has applied the enablement doctrine for decades," he said. "Here, somebody invented a drug and claimed that any other drug that bore any similarity infringed its patent."

"That was too broad a claim, and the Supreme Court hates broad patents," Singer added. "There are few Einsteins. Most inventions are very narrowly defined, and the justices are not inclined to expand that. It's an anti-monopoly court."

In a second case in which the opposition tried and failed to win high court review, Singer successfully defended his win for Mayo over a patent on a method for diagnosing a rare autoimmune disorder. Athena Diagnostics Inc. v. Mayo Collaborative Services LLC, 19-430 (S. Ct., cert. denied Jan. 13, 2020).

The cert denial came despite numerous amicus briefs urging acceptance.

"Our argument was that there really was nothing to see here, despite the fact that powerful interests didn't like the ruling and some said it hurt innovation," Singer said.

"True, it limited patents in some areas, but I believe it helped innovation by people who wanted to freely use unpatented tools of scientific research."

-- John Roemer