Amanda K. Antons, Ph.D.

Amanda K. Antons, Ph.D.’s practice focuses on patent litigation, specifically in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries, including biologics litigation, Abbreviated New Drug Application litigation, Patent Trial and Appeal Board proceedings, European Patent Office proceedings, other contentious patent office matters including interferences, and related trade secrets litigation. Her doctoral training, including work on T cell/HIV interactions, provides her with significant research experience and knowledge in the biotechnology and life sciences industries. Her cases have dealt with a wide variety of technologies, including monoclonal antibodies (e.g., ixekizumab, adalimumab, anti-PD-1/L1 antibodies), and other biologics (e.g., AAV viral vectors, aflibercept, CRISPR, epopoietin), peptides (e.g., insulin glargine, daptomycin), DNA sequencing and small-molecule therapeutics.

Dr. Antons also has experience counseling clients regarding patent portfolio evaluation, including conducting diligences regarding validity of biologics patents and the freedom to operate new technologies. In 2023, Dr. Antons was named a Profiles in Diversity Journal Woman Worth Watching in STEM, as well as a 2023 Rising Star by Managing Intellectual Property.

Novartis v. Eli Lilly (N.D. Cal., E.D. Va., 4th Cir., 9th Cir., and ex-U.S.). Represented Eli Lilly & Co. in global litigations, serving as U.S. counsel in 28 U.S.C. § 1782 discovery actions for use in foreign proceedings, and strategic co-counsel in multiple European litigations and European Patent Office proceedings that arose from the sale of a patent portfolio from Genentech, Inc. to Novartis Pharma AG. In October 2022, Novartis and Lilly entered into a global settlement agreement that concluded the dispute between the parties.
Dow Chemical Co et al. v. Organik Kimya Holding A.S. et al. (Del. Chancery). Represented Dow Chemical and its wholly owned subsidiary, Rohm & Haas, in trade secret litigation against Organik Kimya, over Organik’s misappropriation of Rohm & Haas’s valuable polymer technology used in paint products. Before the ITC, one of many actions against Organik, Rohm & Haas prevailed with Organik being subject to exclusion order, preventing Organik from importing or selling its product in the U.S. for 25 years. Before the Delaware Chancery Court, Dow sought damages for Organik’s trade secret appropriation. The Chancery case settled favorably for Dow and Rohm & Haas.
Eagle Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Celerity Pharmaceuticals, LLC, et al. (D. Del.). Represented Celerity Pharmaceuticals and Baxter Pharmaceuticals in a Hatch-Waxman litigation involving Celerity and Baxter’s generic of BELRAPZO® (bendamustine).
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al. v. Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. (D. Del.). Represented Merck as trial counsel responsible for establishing Merck’s non-infringement arguments concerning its insulin glargine 505(b)(2) product. During the five-day bench trial, cross-examined Sanofi’s opening witness and handled the direct examination of one of Merck’s fact witnesses. The case settled prior to receiving the District Court’s decision.
Amgen Inc. et al. v. Hospira, Inc. (D. Del.). Represented Amgen against Hospira who sought to launch a generic of Amgen’s EPOGEN® (epoetin alfa) product. Dr. Antons deposed key witnesses and secured important admissions related to whether 14 batches of drug substance for Hospira’s EPO biosimilar product were prepared under a Safe Harbor Provision. These 14 batches were found to not be subject to the Safe Harbor Provision, and the jury ultimately awarded a US$70 million verdict for Amgen. In a noteworthy opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed that award.
AbbVie Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (D. Del.). Represented Amgen against AbbVie in concerning Amgen’s Amjevita, a biosimilar to HUMIRA® (adalimumab). Dr. Antons played a key role in Amgen’s disclosures during the “Patent Dance”—the first such dance to take place.
Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (USPTO). Represented Regeneron against Mylan’s effort to invalidate certain patents covering Regeneron’s EYLEA® (aflibercept) biologic. The case remains still pending.
Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC et al. (D.N.J.); Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. (N.D.W. Va.); Cubist Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC et al. (USPTO). Represented Cubist, a wholly owned subsidiary of Merck & Co., against multiple generic companies seeking approval of generic versions of Cubist’s antibiotic product CUBICIN® RF (daptomycin RF). One generic, Amneal, filed an Inter Partes Review petition with the USPTO, alleging that Cubist’s patent was invalid. Based on Cubist’s preliminary patent owner response, the USPTO denied institution of the petition—a complete win for Cubist. As a result, the district court case was dismissed via joint stipulation.
Allergan USA, Inc. et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. et al. (D. Del.). Represented Allergan against multiple generic companies seeking approval of generic versions of VIBERZI® (eluxadoline).
Vifor Fresenius Medical Care Renal Pharma Ltd. et al. v. Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA et al. (D. Del.). Representing Vifor as trial counsel against multiple generic companies seeking approval of generic versions of VELPHORO® (sucroferric oxyhydroxide). Dr. Antons handled multiple direct and cross-examinations during the five-day bench trial. The decision is still pending with the District Court.
Merial v. Merck Animal Health (USPTO). Dr. Antons obtained a complete patent interference victory on behalf of Merck Animal Health at the USPTO. This result ultimately led the parties to settle extensive world-wide litigation involving Merck’s highly profitable flea and tick product.

Amanda K. Antons, Ph.D.

Office

Chicago

Services

Education

Admission