Kevin M. Flannery
Senior Counsel | Philadelphia
Kevin M. Flannery

Kevin M. Flannery is a nationally recognized trial lawyer who represents clients in complex patent and trade secret cases across a wide spectrum of technology areas. He has extensive experience acting as lead trial counsel in patent cases involving medical devices, pharmaceuticals, electronics, software and consumer products. Most recently, Mr. Flannery was co-counsel in a case before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of SCA Hygiene Products, where in a 7-1 decision, the Supreme Court overturned 100 years of precedent, concluding that laches cannot bar the award of legal damages in patent cases. Other successes include winning a US$22 million jury award in a patent case (settled favorably prior to appeal), a favorable pre-verdict settlement after a two-week jury trial in a trade secret case, and a US$4.6 million jury verdict in a patent infringement case, which was affirmed on appeal. 

Mr. Flannery also represents branded clients in litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act. On behalf of Endo Pharmaceuticals, he was part of the trial team that prevailed in a five-week bench patent trial against seven manufacturers of generic drugs, winning injunctions against all seven and protecting Endo’s sales of its OPANA® ER tablets, which at its peak was the company’s second highest-selling product with US$300 million in annual sales. He has also represented GlaxoSmithKline entities in ANDA matters, such as GlaxoSmithKline LLC, et al. v. Sandoz Inc. (Veramyst®) (D. Del.). Mr. Flannery also has particular expertise in representing medical device companies, including Boston Scientific and Synthes. 

Mr. Flannery is consistently recognized by Chambers USA for Intellectual Property in Pennsylvania and as a patent "IP STAR" by Managing Intellectual Property, including most recently for both in 2024. Mr. Flannery is routinely named a World’s Leading Patent Practitioner in Pennsylvania by IAM Patent 1000, who in 2024, described him as a “seasoned trial lawyer known for his adept representation in complex patent disputes across diverse technology sectors” and with “a wealth of experience as lead trial counsel” who “brings a strategic edge, ensuring his patrons’ interests are vigorously defended.” In 2023, IAM noted him as “a clear and convincing advocate who is well versed as lead trial counsel and brings experience across an extensive range of technology areas.” In 2022, IAM described him as an "eminent trial lawyer", and in 2021, wrote that he is “a firm favorite of pharmaceutical and medical devices companies" and "outstanding in terms of both advocacy skill and customer care." He has previously been recognized by Best Lawyers in America and Who’s Who Legal for intellectual property.

  • GlaxoSmithKline LLC, et al. v. Sandoz Inc. (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware). Representing plaintiff GlaxoSmithKline in a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation involving GSK's corticosteroid nasal spray, Veramyst®, which is indicated for treatment of symptoms of seasonal and perennial allergic rhinitis in adults and children ≥ 2 years. Sandoz was the first filer seeking to launch a generic version of Veramyst®. The parties reached a settlement and the case was dismissed in September 2013.
  • Endo Pharmaceuticals v. Impax Laboratories, Actavis, Barr, Sandoz, Roxane and Watson (U.S. District Court, Districts of Delaware and New Jersey). Trial counsel for Endo in relation to six ANDAs filed against Endo’s branded oxymorphone extended release tablet, OPANA® ER .
  • Boston Scientific Corporation et al. v. Micro-Tech Endoscopy USA Inc. et al. (D. Del). Represented Boston Scientific in a patent infringement suit involving multiple patents relating to endoscopic hemostasis clips. Matter settled favorably.
  • Synthes v. Globus (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania). Lead counsel to Synthes in trade secret misappropriation case involving medical devices used in spine surgery. Settled after two weeks of jury trial where defendant paid Synthes US$13.5 million and agreed to non-solicitation of employees for one year.
  • Hearing Components v. Shure (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas). Lead counsel representing Hearing Components for its claim of infringement of three patents by Shure’s sound isolating earphones for MP3 players. Won US$4.6 million verdict after jury trial.
  • Boston Scientific v. ev3, Inc. and Boston Scientific v. Guidant (U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota). Lead counsel to Boston Scientific in separate patent litigations involving medical devices used in stenting procedures. Both cases settled.
  • SB Pharmco d/b/a GlaxoSmithKline v. Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania). Representing GlaxoSmithKline entities in ANDA litigation concerning heart medication.
  • ABB v. Schlumberger (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware). Lead trial counsel for ABB in patent litigation involving digital electricity meters. Won US$22 million verdict, including award of lost profits, after jury trial.
  • Crown Cork & Seal v. Anheuser Bush (U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin). Represented Crown in patent litigation involving new aluminum can lid technology. Case settled after successful appeal to Federal Circuit to overturn trial court’s claim construction in favor of Crown for its patents and affirming summary judgment of non-infringement of AB’s patents.
  • Pergo v. Faus (U.S. District Court, District of Georgia). Represented Pergo in patent litigation involving laminated flooring products. Settled.
  • Advanced Cardiovascular Systems v. Boston Scientific (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California). Represented Boston Scientific in multiple cases involving balloon angioplasty catheters. Cases settled.
  • Amp v. Berg (U.S. International Trade Commission). Represented Respondent Berg in ITC action resulting in favorable findings of non-infringement and inequitable conduct.
  • Molex v. Berg (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware). Represented Berg in patent litigation involving electrical connectors. Settled.
  • 3M v. Dentsply (U.S. District Court, Western District of Wisconsin). Represented Dentsply in patent litigation involving dental products. Settled.
  • Harcros v. Brockhues (U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania). Represented Harcros in patent litigation involving pigments for coloring concrete. Settled.
  • Procter & Gamble v. McNeil Consumer Products (U.S. District Court, District of Delaware). Represented Johnson & Johnson entity in patent litigation involving women’s healthcare products. Settled.
  • McNeil Consumer Products v. Kimberly Clark (U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey). Represented Johnson & Johnson entity in patent litigation involving women’s healthcare products. Settled.
  • IP Issues to Consider When Launching a New Product — NJCCA 9th Annual In-House Counsel Conference, Whippany, NJ (September 23, 2011)

    This program explored the various different types of intellectual property rights that can be used to protect new products, the types of rights conferred and their geographic reach, and best practices for minimizing risks of infringement of third party rights.
Services Industries
    • Villanova University School of Law, J.D., 1991
    • Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, B.S., Aerospace and Ocean Engineering, 1986
    • Pennsylvania
    • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • United States Patent and Trademark Office
    • United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
    • Taught a course in patent litigation at his law school alma mater, Villanova University School of Law
    • American Intellectual Property Law Association
    • Philadelphia Intellectual Property Law Association