Juanita R. Brooks

Juanita R. Brooks is a principal at Fish & Richardson P.C. who focuses on complex intellectual property trials and appeals.

Her long track record as a successful litigator includes early work for Federal Defenders Inc. and in her own criminal defense practice. Patent cases and other types of civil litigation have similarities, she said, because the lawyer’s job is always to claim the moral high ground for the client.

“There’s always a good guy and there’s always a bad guy,” she said in 2021. “There’s always somebody wearing the white hat. There’s always somebody wearing the black hat. You need to win that and take control of the narrative.”

Now she’s anticipating new challenges. In late April, just back from a company retreat in Chicago, she said the IP buzz is all about AI. “People are talking about patentability, copyrights and trademarks in the AI age,” Brooks said. “It’s a really hot topic right now with a lot of gray areas, and we’re looking to the future.”

AI can be extremely helpful, she added, “but where does the human factor end and the AI take over — and where does the law come in?” She recalled that there was a time when similar uncertainty affected computer programming. “You couldn’t patent software, you couldn’t get a patent on an algorithm,” she said. “Now, similarly, AI has been getting a lot of smart people’s attention and firms are trying to get ahead of it.”

The $235 million verdict that Brooks successfully defended for GlaxoSmithKline LLC in two trips to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit remains atop her docket. GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., 2018-1976 (F. Cir., decided Aug. 5, 2021).

The circuit panel filed two high-profile precedential decisions in Glaxo’s favor on the case, followed by defendant Teva’s petition for a writ of certiorari at the U.S. Supreme Court, contending that the outcome must be reversed because it violates the Hatch-Waxman Act. The high court sought the Solicitor General’s input and got a recommendation that cert should be granted. In early May, Brooks was awaiting word on whether the justices would agree.

For a confidential client in the cybersecurity sector, Brooks persuaded the Federal Circuit to reverse, in a precedential decision, a district court ruling invalidating four of the client’s cybersecurity patents.

“We have several important cases pending, and I feel like I’m in a bit of a holding pattern at present,” Brooks said. “And I’m enjoying the job very much.”

—John Roemer