My goal for every client: identify legal solutions that can drive effective business outcomes tied to a client’s long-term strategic goals.

Erik’s practice focuses on the litigation of intellectual property disputes, with particular emphasis on biotechnology, medical devices, telecommunications, and high-technology industries.

Erik regularly assists life sciences, high-technology, and telecommunications companies in the prosecution or defense of intellectual property lawsuits with competitors regarding biotechnology products, drugs, medical devices, consumer electronics, smartphones, and telecommunications equipment. As a key member of the Life Sciences Group, he coordinates our practice involving claims based on the introduction of biosimilars under the Affordable Care Act’s Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). Erik currently serves as a member of The Sedona Conference working group on patent litigation involving biopharmaceutical products.

Biopharmaceutical Highlights

  • Helped Sandoz secure a victory in its patent and intellectual property disputes with Amgen, leading to the introduction of the first “biosimilar” pharmaceutical product under the BPCIA. The case addressed ground-breaking issues regarding the BPCIA’s procedures related to when and how brand name biotechnology companies can assert patents in an effort to stop the introduction of new competition.
  • Served as a chief architect of the University of California’s patent infringement victories over Genentech and Monsanto regarding claims to recombinant human growth hormone and recombinant bovine growth hormone. Both suits stemmed from patents involving inventions arising from the initial isolation of genetic sequences used for and creation of vectors designed to make pharmaceutical proteins. The resulting settlements, each valued at more than $200 million, ranked at the time as among the top ten settlements in any biotechnology patent case in the United States.
  • Served as counsel to litigants in patent disputes concerning biosimilars for filgrastim (Neupogen), pegfilgrastim (Neulasta), and adalimumab (Humira).
  • Advised companies regarding patent strategies to address the expected introduction of biosimilars by reference to combinations of patents involving claims to compositions, formulations, methods of treatment, and methods of manufacture.
  • Litigated competitor and non-competitor cases involving new treatments based on biologics following the assertion of claims to active pharmaceutical ingredients, revised formulations, and new methods of treatment and technology used in the manufacture or purification of biologics or complex pharmaceuticals.

Representative Biopharmaceutical Matters

  • Amgen Inc., et al. v. Sandoz Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for N.D. Cal., Federal Circuit).
    Secured a victory on behalf of Sandoz in the first case to interpret the BPCIA. The federal district court ruled in Sandoz’s favor on all issues before the court, adopting Sandoz’s interpretation of the BPCIA in all respects. The court also denied Amgen’s motions urging a contrary interpretation and seeking a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit later affirmed the key elements of Sandoz’s victory. Erik current represents Sandoz in disputes regarding patents directed toward the purification of proteins expressed using recombinant DNA technology.
  • Momenta Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals Inc. (U.S. District Court for Massachusetts).
    Represented patent holders in a trial regarding a method of manufacturing a pharmaceutical derived from animal sources. Representing these clients in subsequent proceedings and appeals regarding the effect of disclosures to the USP on enforcement of pharmaceutical patents.
  • Elan Pharma International Ltd. v. Abraxis BioScience Inc. (U.S. District Court for Delaware).
    Represented a pharmaceutical company in patent disputes concerning the creation and use of a nanoparticle with a proprietary pharmaceutical coating as a cancer therapeutic.

As part of his high-technology intellectual property litigation practice, Erik represents patent holders or accused infringers in a wide variety of technologies in proceedings around the country. He has tried cases involving semiconductors, power circuits, software interfaces, industrial designs, and graphical user interface designs.

Representative Technology Matters

  • Smartphone Litigation
    Co-led a team that successfully tried a series of high-profile smartphone cases, including a jury verdict of over $1 billion.
  • Fairchild Semiconductor Corp. v. Power Integrations, Inc. (U.S. District Court for Delaware and N.D. Cal.).
    Representing a semiconductor manufacturer in multiple long-running disputes regarding technology used in circuits and chips incorporated into power supplies.

Leadership Roles

  • Current member of Morrison & Foerster’s board of directors
  • Treasurer and chair of the Finance Committee for the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, the largest pro bono service provider in Santa Clara County (San Jose, California)
  • Serves on the committee that evaluates civil rule changes in the Northern District of California
  • Chair of the Litigation Section of the State Bar of California (2007-2008)
  • Chair of the Litigation Section’s Rules & Legislation Committee (2005-2007)
Show More

Experience

  • Co-led a team that successfully tried a series of high profile smartphone cases, including a jury verdict of over $1 billion. 

  • (U.S. District Court for N.D. Cal., Federal Circuit). Secured a victory on behalf of Sandoz Inc. in the first case to interpret the Affordable Care Act’s Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). The federal district court ruled in Sandoz’s favor on all issues before the court, adopting Sandoz’s interpretation of the BPCIA in all respects. The court also denied Amgen’s motions urging a contrary interpretation and seeking a preliminary injunction.  The Federal Circuit later affirmed the key elements of Sandoz victory.  Mr. Olson current represents Sandoz in disputes regarding patents directed toward the purification of proteins expressed using recombinant DNA technology.  

  • (Kansas District Court; U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas). Represented SoftBank Corporation in litigation that sought to prevent its acquisition of a controlling interest in Sprint Nextel Corporation. Plaintiffs ultimately withdrew their request for a preliminary injunction after oral argument and then voluntarily dismissed their claims after the transaction closed. (2012-2013).

  • (Delaware Court of Chancery).  Representing SoftBank Corporation in breach of fiduciary duty and appraisal litigation associated with Sprint’s cash merger with Clearwire Corporation. Served as lead counsel at a trial of the fiduciary duty and appraisal claims in the fall of 2016.  The case is currently one of the largest appraisal actions ongoing in the Court of Chancery.

  • (D. Colo.). Represented Crocs, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors in shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in Colorado. In February 2009, won dismissal of all derivative claims, with prejudice, on first motion to dismiss. No appeal was filed.

  • (D. Colo.). Represented Crocs, Inc. and its current and former officers and directors in shareholder class actions (claiming violations of the Exchange Act). Won dismissal of all claims with prejudice pursuant to the Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 on a first motion to dismiss.

  • (Del. Court of Chancery & Los Angeles County Superior Court). Represented Cogent Inc. and its directors in a lawsuit challenging its merger with the 3M Company. Successfully defeated a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the transaction based on alleged breach of fiduciary duties.

  • (Nevada State Court). On behalf of Pinnacle Entertainment, the buyer of Ameristar Casinos, defeated motions seeking a preliminary injunction against the closing of the merger and obtained a dismissal of plaintiffs claim.

  • (D. Nev.). Represented Global Cash Access and its executives in securities litigation brought against a payment processor who specialized in the gaming industry. Successfully dismissed certain initial claims and then obtained a favorable settlement, which was fully covered by insurance.

  • (Marin County Superior Court). Reached a favorable settlement on behalf of Restoration Hardware in connection with shareholder litigation stemming from a going-private transaction.

  • (N.D. Cal.). On behalf of Titan Pharmaceuticals, obtained voluntary dismissal of pending class action securities claims against Titan without need to file a motion to dismiss.

  • (S.D.N.Y.). On behalf of Telik Inc., successfully settled a class action litigation challenging the disclosure of Phase III clinical trial results based on payments by insurers without the need for costly or burdensome discovery.

  • (Del. Court of Chancery). Representing Global Defense Technology & Systems Inc. and its directors in litigation challenging its proposed merger with a private equity buyer. (2011)

  • (U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware). Represented Abraxis in its high profile patent dispute and trial with Elan regarding technology used in the delivery of chemotherapy agents.

  • Successfully persuaded the SEC to conclude, without penalties, investigations into alleged federal securities law violations at a software company, a home goods retailer, and a medical device manufacturer. (2005-2011)

  • Represented multiple U.S. public companies with far-reaching internal investigations regarding the company’s employee stock-option program. (2006-2007)

Show More


Close
Feedback

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.