Christine Dudzik is a partner in the Intellectual Property Department of Edwards Wildman. Ms. Dudzik has worked extensively in patent litigation involving a broad range of technical fields including recombinant DNA, protein purification, immunology, diagnostics, chemistry, polymers, agricultural chemicals, pharmaceuticals, electrochemical processes and computer LCD technology. She has participated in all aspects of litigation and arbitrations including discovery, dispositive motions, depositions, Markman hearings, and bench and jury trials, as well as appeals to the Federal Circuit. Ms. Dudzik represents clients in licensing matters including the preparation and negotiation of numerous patent license agreements, research and development agreements confidentiality agreements, and counseling with respect to other patent and trademark related matters, including due diligence, invalidity and non-infringement opinions. Prior to earning her law degree, Ms. Dudzik worked as a patent agent.
Notable Experience
· Represented generic drug manufacturers in patent litigation actions under 35 USC Section 271(e)(2) involving Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) and other Hatch-Waxman related issues.
· Successful defense of patent infringement case on behalf of a leading manufacturer of agricultural chemicals where invalidity and inequitable conduct positions developed during discovery lead to the grant of a world-wide license on the eve of trial.
· Represented pharmaceutical company in patent infringement case involving biodegradable polymer and its use in controlled release drug delivery systems. Case favorably settled for client 2 days into jury trial.
· Represented client in arbitration proceeding for breach of contract involving patents directed to HPV technology for use in diagnostic gene-based assays useful in the diagnosis of cervical cancer.
· Represents medical supply companies in patent infringement actions and providing counseling with respect to other patent related matters including due diligence, invalidity and non-infringement opinions.
· Experience in patent prosecution primarily in the chemical and biotechnology arts and has participated in Interferences and Opposition Proceedings and Appeals in the European Patent Office.
Representative Cases
· Amgen Inc. v. Chugai Pharmaceuticals, Inc./Genetics Institute. (D. Mass.) 927 F.2d 1200 (Fed. Cir. 1991) One of the first major biotech patent infringement cases to go to trial involving recombinant DNA, specifically, erythropoietin (rEPO), and purifying and isolating the EPO gene, where client Amgen's patent was upheld and G.I.'s patent was invalidated for non-enablement.
· Bristol-Myers Squibb v. Ben Venue, Inc. (D.N.J.) Represented Ben Venue in multidistrict patent infringement action under 35 USC Section 271(e)(2) (In re Research Corporation Technologies, Inc.) involving Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) for chemotherapy agent where favorable Markman decision lead to finding that patent was invalid for obviousness-type double patenting.
· Digene v. Ventana Medical Systems. (D. Del.) Represented plaintiff in a patent infringement action involving Human Papillomavirus (HPV) and DNA probes used in gene-based assays for the detection of cervical cancer in women. Case settled favorably for client on the eve of trial.
· Eltech Systems/Oxytech Systems v. PPG Industries. (W.D. La) 903 F.2d 805 (Fed. Cir. 1990) Successfully defended PPG in patent litigation involving polymermodified asbestos diaphragms used in chlorine production. This is one of the leading cases awarding attorney fees against a patentee for bad faith litigation.
· American Dental Assoc. Health Foundation v. Bisco, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) Defended manufacturer and developer of dental supply products in a patent infringement case involving photoactive dentin bonding agents where case was favorably settled during discovery where patent was being challenged under several invalidity defenses including written description and non-enablement.
· TAP Holdings Inc. v. OWL Pharmaceuticals, L.L.C. (N.D. Ohio) Patent infringement action under 35 USC Section 271(e)(2) involving Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) of client Oakwood for controlled release delivery microspheres for the drug leuprolide acetate (Lupron Depot®). Won summary judgment of non-infringement of eight of the twelve patents in suit.
· Digene/Qiagen v. Roche and Gen-Probe. (ICDR Arbitration N.Y.) Representing plaintiff in an arbitration proceeding for breach of contract involving patents directed to HPV technology for use in diagnostic gene-based assays. Case is pending.
· American Home Products, Corp. v. The Upjohn Company. (D.N.J.) Represented Upjohn in a patent infringement case involving canine coronia virus vaccine. Case settled during discovery.
· Novo Nordisk v. Pharmacia & UpJohn. (D.N.J.) Multiple party patent litigation involving recombinant human growth hormone (hGH) where case was favorably settled for client Pharmacia & UpJohn during discovery.
· Oakwood Laboratories, L.L.C. and University of Kentucky Research Foundation v. TAP Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Abbott Labs. (N.D. Ill.) Represented Plaintiffs in patent infringement case involving controlled release drug delivery system. Case favorably settled for client after 2 days of jury trial.
· ICD/Confab Industries v. The Procter & Gamble Co. (E. D. Pa) Patent infringement case involving feminine personal products (cadamenials) where case was favorably settled on behalf of client P & G on the eve of trial.
· Stauffer Chemical Co. v. PPG Industries, Inc. (N.D. Ohio) Successfully represented PPG in patent infringement case involving corn herbicide and chemical antidotes where case settled on first day of trial.
· Lisec v. Lenhardt Maschinenbau. (D.N.J.) Patent infringement case involving glass transporting equipment. Case was favorably settled for client during discovery.
· Opposition and Appeal re: Amgen Inc. EP 237 545. Client Amgen's patent to recombinant human pluripotent granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (r G-CSF) was upheld as valid in European Patent Office.
· ADAM et al. (Monsanto) v. LEEMANS et al., U.S. Interference No. 103,924. Involved in representing Monsanto in patent interference for transgenic corn patent.
· Opposition and Appeal re: Genetics Institute, Inc. EP 209 539. Represented Amgen's successful challenge to G.I.'s European patent on purified erythropoietin (EPO) where patent was found to be invalid.
· Opposition re: Chiron Corp. EP 043 911. Successfully defended Chiron in European Opposition regarding cell culture medium where Chiron's patent was upheld.
· The Procter & Gamble Co. v. Johnson & Johnson, Inc. and McNeil-PPC, Inc. (D. Del/Arbitration) Represented P & G in patent infringement case involving cadamenials which favorably settled prior to arbitration.
Industries
· Life Sciences
Memberships
· American Bar Association, Member
· Chicago Intellectual Property Association, Member
· Trial Bar of Northern District of Illinois
· Leading Lawyers Network, Member