David C. Doyle

David C. Doyle

Partner

San Diego, (858) 720-5139

Education

University of California, San Diego (B.A., 1973)
University of California, Los Angeles (J.D., 1976)

Bar Admissions

California

David Doyle is a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property Group and a first-chair trial lawyer whose practice focuses exclusively on patent litigation disputes for pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical device and other technology companies. He has a wealth of jury trial experience in patent cases, including numerous multi-week jury trials in the past five years. Boasting a truly nationwide practice, Mr. Doyle has served recently as lead trial counsel in patent cases in New York, New Jersey, Illinois, Texas, Delaware, Colorado, Nevada and California. He is leader of the firm’s Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) litigation group, and his latest patent trial was an ANDA case in the District of Nevada in January 2015, a result affirmed by the Federal Circuit in September 2015. He also has a long and distinguished track record of serving as lead appellate counsel in cases before the Federal Circuit. He recently represented Sandoz and Momenta before the Supreme Court in Teva v. Sandoz.

Mr. Doyle was named Best Lawyer’s “San Diego Litigation – Patent Lawyer of the Year” for 2013, an honor given to a single lawyer in the metropolitan area. He was named a 2011 BTI Client Service All-Star by corporate counsel in recognition of his excellence in client service, and was honored in The National Law Journal’s 2010 Winning list of the nation’s most accomplished trial lawyers. He is perennially selected as a top IP lawyer in the United States by Chambers USA, was selected for the 11th year in a row as a top IP attorney by his peers in Best Lawyers in America 2017, is recommended by Legal 500 US 2013–2014 and 2016, and in 2006–2007, 2010, and 2012–2015 was ranked as one of the top 10 IP lawyers in the United States by U.S. Lawyer Rankings. In 2013, The Daily Journal named Mr. Doyle one of the Top 75 IP Litigators in California, and every year since 2005, both The San Diego Daily Transcript and The Los Angeles Times have recognized Mr. Doyle as one of Southern California’s leading IP attorneys. Mr. Doyle was named an “IP Star” by Managing Intellectual Property Magazine in 2013-2014 and in 2017, and MVP of the Year in Life Sciences in 2013 by Law360.

Mr. Doyle is also active in community legal interests. He is chairman of the board of directors for the Kyoto Prize Symposium, a legal, corporate and scientific organization that recognizes international scientific achievement. Upon invitation by the U.S. District Court, he also has chaired three magistrate selection committees for the Southern District Court of California and serves on the Court's Patent Local Rules Committee.

Mr. Doyle holds a B.A., magna cum laude, from the University of California at San Diego and a J.D. from the University of California at Los Angeles, where he was elected to the Order of the Coif.

Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.
(District of Nevada). Represented Sandoz in Hatch-Waxman litigation regarding the company’s application to sell an injectable oncology drug. Of the 14 claims originally asserted by Spectrum against Sandoz’s proposed generic version of levoleucovorin, successfully eliminated all but two claims before trial. After a five-day bench trial over two weeks, the court found clear and convincing evidence of obviousness and invalidated the remaining two claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed in a published decision.
Generic Drug/ANDA Litigation
(District of Delaware, Southern District of New York, District of Columbia, District of Nevada, Eastern District of Texas, and District of New Jersey; Federal Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court). Mr. Doyle is the leader of the firm’s ANDA/BPCIA Patent Litigation Practice Group. He has served as lead trial counsel in multiple ANDA cases in New York, New Jersey, Nevada, Delaware, and California. These cases have involved the following generic drugs: glatiramer acetate, oxycontin, palonosetron, lisdexamfetamine, nicardipine, dexmedetomidine, docetaxel, epinastine, tygecycline, bimatoprost, levoleucovorin, and bupropion hydrobromide. He completed three ANDA trials in 2011, another in 2012, three in 2013, and one more in 2015.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
(Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Represented Sandoz in an appeal related to Copaxone, Teva’s $4 billion multiple sclerosis drug. Achieved victory when the Federal Circuit ruled that five of the nine patents covering Copaxone are invalid. Sandoz launched its product in 2015 as the sole competitor to Teva.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc
(Southern District of New York). Represented Sandoz and Momenta Pharmaceuticals in a patent infringement action involving Copaxone, resulting in a complete dismissal.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.
(Northern District of California). Represented Impax Laboratories in a patent infringement action involving Takeda’s most successful product, Dexilant, an antacid medication. The case was tried in June 2013 and settled in 2014.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. v. Sandoz Inc.
(Southern District of New York). Represented Sandoz Inc. in a 12-day bench trial under the Hatch-Waxman Act regarding Sandoz’s generic version of the pain medication OxyContin. Case settled on favorable terms shortly before judgment.
Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
(District of Delaware). Represented Sandoz Inc. as accused infringer and was part of team that obtained a verdict of patent invalidity for obviousness. Successfully argued appeal before U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judgment of invalidity was affirmed.
Hospira v. Sandoz
(District of New Jersey). Represented Sandoz as manufacturer of a generic version of the ICU sedative Precedex in a trial under the Hatch-Waxman Act, resulting in invalidity of the patent with the latest expiration date, and another product launch by Sandoz.
Applied Biosystems Group v. Illumina
(Northern District of California). Represented the world’s largest maker of DNA sequencing systems, Applied Biosystems (AB), against one of its biggest competitors, Illumina, seeking a declaratory judgment that AB’s newest DNA sequencing system did not infringe patents held by Illumina and that the patents were invalid. The patents involved biotechnology, electronics and software elements. AB prevailed on a key summary judgment ruling of noninfringement on one of the four asserted claims. During trial, eliminated one other claim as invalid, and another as not infringed. After a three-week trial, the jury agreed that AB’s probes did not infringe the remaining claim. All rulings were affirmed on appeal.
Merck KGAA v. Integra - Life Sciences Amicus Representation
(U.S. Supreme Court). Represented a group of biotechnology tool companies and trade associations in submitting an important amicus brief in a case involving 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(i) (use of patent for FDA information). The Supreme Court’s decision expressly avoided a result that could have undermined the patent rights of biotechnology tool companies.
Inverness Medical Switzerland and Church & Dwight Co. v. OraSure Technologies
(District of New Jersey). Represented OraSure in patent suit alleging that OraSure’s HIV test kits infringe several of Inverness’s widely-licensed patents. OraSure defeated a motion for summary judgment of infringement and aggressively challenged the validity and enforceability of Inverness’s patents. Inverness exited the case and settled the litigation by offering a license with favorable terms to OraSure. The settlement paved the way for OraSure to launch the country’s first over-the-counter HIV test.
Nichols Institute Diagnostics v. Scantibodies Clinical Laboratory
(Southern District of California). Represented Scantibodies in this patent suit brought by Nichols involving immunoassays to detect levels of parathyroid hormone (PTH) in human blood. Prevailed in a three-week jury trial that resulted in a jury verdict invalidating the patent on best-mode, enablement and written description grounds. The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury verdict ruling that the ‘790 patent was anticipated by the inventors’ own prior publication.
Composite Rotor v. Beckman Coulter, Inc.
(Northern District of California). Represented Beckman Coulter in defense of a patent infringement action filed by Composite Rotor regarding a medical centrifuge patent. Obtained a summary judgment of noninfringement, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Abbott Diabetes Care v. DexCom, Inc.
(District of Delaware). Won a motion to dismiss the complaint due to prematurity in this patent infringement case involving glucose-monitoring patents on behalf of DexCom, Inc., a developer and manufacturer of a device for the continuous monitoring of glucose in diabetes patients. Prevailed on a motion to stay the case due to pending United States Patent and Trademark Office reexaminations. These motion victories and success in a reexamination matter at the USPTO led to a favorable settlement in 2014.
Abbott Laboratories v. Syntron Bioresearch
(Southern District of California). Obtained a jury verdict of noninfringement for Syntron Bioresearch in a patent suit brought by Abbott Laboratories alleging that Syntron's test kits infringed two of Abbott's lateral flow immunoassay patents. After a three-week trial, the jury returned a verdict of noninfringement on both patents asserted by Abbott. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed on all issues, except the construction of a single claim term. Following appeal, the case was settled on the terms Syntron had originally proposed.
General Atomics (Diazyme Division) v. Axis-Shield ASA
(Northern District of California). Represented General Atomics in a patent case against Axis-Shield ASA involving General Atomics’ Diazyme Laboratories Division’s enzymatic homocysteine assay. On Morrison & Foerster’s advice, General Atomics filed a successful early motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on appeal.
Inverness Medical Switzerland and Unipath Diagnostics v. Acon Laboratories
(District of Massachusetts). Represented Acon in two patent suits brought by Inverness, alleging that Acon’s test kits infringe a total of nine patents. Inverness had won a preliminary injunction prohibiting Pfizer from selling its e.p.t.® product (the market leader). Inverness filed a similar motion against Acon, but it was unsuccessful in its two-year effort to obtain a preliminary injunction against Acon. The case was settled on terms favorable to Acon Laboratories.
Stratagene v. Invitrogen Corporation
(District of Maryland). Represented Invitrogen Corporation in a patent infringement case involving polymerase blends for enhanced polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Successfully petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office to reexamine the asserted patent based on new prior art. Raised issues of priority and inventorship that resulted in a favorable settlement.
Eastman Kodak v. Kyocera Corp.
(Southern District of New York). Represented Kyocera Corporation as lead trial counsel in this patent/licensing dispute involving the Kodak digital imaging patent portfolio. Helped Kyocera negotiate a favorable settlement resolving all outstanding litigation against Kodak.
St. Clair v. Kyocera Wireless Corp. and Kyocera Communications, Inc.
(District of Delaware). Represents Palm, Inc., Kyocera Wireless Corporation and Kyocera Communications, Inc. as lead trial counsel in this patent infringement case. Succeeded in convincing the district court to stay the case shortly before trial while the Federal Circuit decides an appeal from prior litigation involving the same patents. The Federal Circuit decided that appeal favorably for our clients. Subsequently, in March 2012, Kyocera and Palm moved for summary judgment of noninfringement and won. (Significantly, the same patents had been found by three prior juries to be infringing.)
Spectrum Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.
(District of Nevada). Represented Sandoz in Hatch-Waxman litigation regarding the company’s application to sell an injectable oncology drug. Of the 14 claims originally asserted by Spectrum against Sandoz’s proposed generic version of levoleucovorin, successfully eliminated all but two claims before trial. After a five-day bench trial over two weeks, the court found clear and convincing evidence of obviousness and invalidated the remaining two claims. The Federal Circuit affirmed in a published decision.
Generic Drug/ANDA Litigation
(District of Delaware, Southern District of New York, District of Columbia, District of Nevada, Eastern District of Texas, and District of New Jersey; Federal Circuit and U.S. Supreme Court). Mr. Doyle is the leader of the firm’s ANDA/BPCIA Patent Litigation Practice Group. He has served as lead trial counsel in multiple ANDA cases in New York, New Jersey, Nevada, Delaware, and California. These cases have involved the following generic drugs: glatiramer acetate, oxycontin, palonosetron, lisdexamfetamine, nicardipine, dexmedetomidine, docetaxel, epinastine, tygecycline, bimatoprost, levoleucovorin, and bupropion hydrobromide. He completed three ANDA trials in 2011, another in 2012, three in 2013, and one more in 2015.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
(Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Represented Sandoz in an appeal related to Copaxone, Teva’s $4 billion multiple sclerosis drug. Achieved victory when the Federal Circuit ruled that five of the nine patents covering Copaxone are invalid. Sandoz launched its product in 2015 as the sole competitor to Teva.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc
(Southern District of New York). Represented Sandoz and Momenta Pharmaceuticals in a patent infringement action involving Copaxone, resulting in a complete dismissal.
Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.
(Northern District of California). Represented Impax Laboratories in a patent infringement action involving Takeda’s most successful product, Dexilant, an antacid medication. The case was tried in June 2013 and settled in 2014.
Purdue Pharma L.P., et al. v. Sandoz Inc.
(Southern District of New York). Represented Sandoz Inc. in a 12-day bench trial under the Hatch-Waxman Act regarding Sandoz’s generic version of the pain medication OxyContin. Case settled on favorable terms shortly before judgment.
Allergan, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.
(District of Delaware). Represented Sandoz Inc. as accused infringer and was part of team that obtained a verdict of patent invalidity for obviousness. Successfully argued appeal before U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Judgment of invalidity was affirmed.
Hospira v. Sandoz
(District of New Jersey). Represented Sandoz as manufacturer of a generic version of the ICU sedative Precedex in a trial under the Hatch-Waxman Act, resulting in invalidity of the patent with the latest expiration date, and another product launch by Sandoz.
Applied Biosystems Group v. Illumina
(Northern District of California). Represented the world’s largest maker of DNA sequencing systems, Applied Biosystems (AB), against one of its biggest competitors, Illumina, seeking a declaratory judgment that AB’s newest DNA sequencing system did not infringe patents held by Illumina and that the patents were invalid. The patents involved biotechnology, electronics and software elements. AB prevailed on a key summary judgment ruling of noninfringement on one of the four asserted claims. During trial, eliminated one other claim as invalid, and another as not infringed. After a three-week trial, the jury agreed that AB’s probes did not infringe the remaining claim. All rulings were affirmed on appeal.
Merck KGAA v. Integra - Life Sciences Amicus Representation
(U.S. Supreme Court). Represented a group of biotechnology tool companies and trade associations in submitting an important amicus brief in a case involving 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(i) (use of patent for FDA information). The Supreme Court’s decision expressly avoided a result that could have undermined the patent rights of biotechnology tool companies.
Inverness Medical Switzerland and Church & Dwight Co. v. OraSure Technologies
(District of New Jersey). Represented OraSure in patent suit alleging that OraSure’s HIV test kits infringe several of Inverness’s widely-licensed patents. OraSure defeated a motion for summary judgment of infringement and aggressively challenged the validity and enforceability of Inverness’s patents. Inverness exited the case and settled the litigation by offering a license with favorable terms to OraSure. The settlement paved the way for OraSure to launch the country’s first over-the-counter HIV test.
Nichols Institute Diagnostics v. Scantibodies Clinical Laboratory
(Southern District of California). Represented Scantibodies in this patent suit brought by Nichols involving immunoassays to detect levels of parathyroid hormone (PTH) in human blood. Prevailed in a three-week jury trial that resulted in a jury verdict invalidating the patent on best-mode, enablement and written description grounds. The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury verdict ruling that the ‘790 patent was anticipated by the inventors’ own prior publication.
Composite Rotor v. Beckman Coulter, Inc.
(Northern District of California). Represented Beckman Coulter in defense of a patent infringement action filed by Composite Rotor regarding a medical centrifuge patent. Obtained a summary judgment of noninfringement, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Abbott Diabetes Care v. DexCom, Inc.
(District of Delaware). Won a motion to dismiss the complaint due to prematurity in this patent infringement case involving glucose-monitoring patents on behalf of DexCom, Inc., a developer and manufacturer of a device for the continuous monitoring of glucose in diabetes patients. Prevailed on a motion to stay the case due to pending United States Patent and Trademark Office reexaminations. These motion victories and success in a reexamination matter at the USPTO led to a favorable settlement in 2014.
Abbott Laboratories v. Syntron Bioresearch
(Southern District of California). Obtained a jury verdict of noninfringement for Syntron Bioresearch in a patent suit brought by Abbott Laboratories alleging that Syntron's test kits infringed two of Abbott's lateral flow immunoassay patents. After a three-week trial, the jury returned a verdict of noninfringement on both patents asserted by Abbott. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed on all issues, except the construction of a single claim term. Following appeal, the case was settled on the terms Syntron had originally proposed.
General Atomics (Diazyme Division) v. Axis-Shield ASA
(Northern District of California). Represented General Atomics in a patent case against Axis-Shield ASA involving General Atomics’ Diazyme Laboratories Division’s enzymatic homocysteine assay. On Morrison & Foerster’s advice, General Atomics filed a successful early motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on appeal.
Inverness Medical Switzerland and Unipath Diagnostics v. Acon Laboratories
(District of Massachusetts). Represented Acon in two patent suits brought by Inverness, alleging that Acon’s test kits infringe a total of nine patents. Inverness had won a preliminary injunction prohibiting Pfizer from selling its e.p.t.® product (the market leader). Inverness filed a similar motion against Acon, but it was unsuccessful in its two-year effort to obtain a preliminary injunction against Acon. The case was settled on terms favorable to Acon Laboratories.
Stratagene v. Invitrogen Corporation
(District of Maryland). Represented Invitrogen Corporation in a patent infringement case involving polymerase blends for enhanced polymerase chain reaction (PCR). Successfully petitioned the Patent and Trademark Office to reexamine the asserted patent based on new prior art. Raised issues of priority and inventorship that resulted in a favorable settlement.
Eastman Kodak v. Kyocera Corp.
(Southern District of New York). Represented Kyocera Corporation as lead trial counsel in this patent/licensing dispute involving the Kodak digital imaging patent portfolio. Helped Kyocera negotiate a favorable settlement resolving all outstanding litigation against Kodak.
St. Clair v. Kyocera Wireless Corp. and Kyocera Communications, Inc.
(District of Delaware). Represents Palm, Inc., Kyocera Wireless Corporation and Kyocera Communications, Inc. as lead trial counsel in this patent infringement case. Succeeded in convincing the district court to stay the case shortly before trial while the Federal Circuit decides an appeal from prior litigation involving the same patents. The Federal Circuit decided that appeal favorably for our clients. Subsequently, in March 2012, Kyocera and Palm moved for summary judgment of noninfringement and won. (Significantly, the same patents had been found by three prior juries to be infringing.)

David Doyle was named Best Lawyer’s “San Diego Litigation – Patent Lawyer of the Year” for 2013, an honor given to a single lawyer in the metropolitan area. He was named a 2011 BTI Client Service All-Star by corporate counsel in recognition of his excellence in client service, and was honored in The National Law Journal’s 2010 Winning list of the nation’s most accomplished trial lawyers. He is perennially selected as a top IP lawyer in the United States by Chambers USA, was selected for the 11th year in a row as a top IP attorney by his peers in Best Lawyers in America 2017, is recommended by Legal 500 US 2013–2014 and 2016, and in 2006–2007, 2010, and 2012–2015 was ranked as one of the top 10 IP lawyers in the United States by U.S. Lawyer Rankings. In 2013, The Daily Journal named Mr. Doyle one of the Top 75 IP Litigators in California, and every year since 2005, both The San Diego Daily Transcript and The Los Angeles Times have recognized Mr. Doyle as one of Southern California’s leading IP attorneys. Mr. Doyle was named an “IP Star” by Managing Intellectual Property Magazine in 2013-2014 and in 2017, and MVP of the Year in Life Sciences in 2013 by Law360.

Email Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

©1996-2017 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved.