Brian P. Murphy

Partner

Brian P. Murphy is a partner in Morgan Lewis’s Intellectual Property Practice and serves as deputy practice group leader for the Patent Litigation Group. Mr. Murphy is a trial lawyer and patent attorney with more than 20 years of experience trying (jury and nonjury), litigating, and resolving major patent lawsuits for corporate clients in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, consumer products, biomedical device, and electronics industries. He has acted as lead trial counsel, representing brand-name pharmaceutical companies in Hatch-Waxman patent litigation.

Mr. Murphy has appeared as lead trial counsel for GlaxoSmithKline, Daiichi Sankyo, Du Pont Air Products Nanomaterials, SPI Pharma, and other companies in patent litigations involving ranitidine hydrochloride (antiulcer medicine), ofloxacin (antibiotic), ibritumomab (monoclonal antibody), CHO cell-expressed MAbs, mannitol (osmotic diuretic), and bupropion (antidepressant). He also has counseled companies on patent and trademark matters and conducted intellectual property training seminars for in-house counsel. Mr. Murphy is a frequent speaker at industry and academic conferences on patent litigation practice and procedure.

Prior to joining Morgan Lewis, Mr. Murphy was a partner in an intellectual property boutique law firm in New York City.

Mr. Murphy is a member of the Intellectual Property Owners Association, where he was vice-chairman of the Hatch-Waxman Committee (2004-2007); the American Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law Section; and the American Intellectual Property Law Association, Patent Litigation Committee. From 2006-2008, he has been recognized as a New York Super Lawyer in the area of intellectual property litigation. 

Mr. Murphy is admitted to practice in New York and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

Notable Patent Litigations:

Pharmaceuticals, Biotech, and Specialty Chemicals

• Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, CA 2:08-CV-493-WJM-MF (D.N.J.)
• Roquette Freres v. SPI Pharma, Inc., CA No. 06-540 (GMS)(D. Del.)
• Du Pont Air Products Nanomaterials v. Cabot Microelectronics Corp., CV 06-2952-PHX (ROS)(D. Az.)
• Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., Civil Action No. 04-cv-171 (KAJ) (D. Del.)
• Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 441 F. Supp. 2d 672, rev’d, 501 F.3d 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2007)
• Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co. v. Apotex, Inc., 380 F. Supp. 2d 478 (D.N.J. 2005)
• Daiichi Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bausch & Lomb Inc., Civil Action No. 02-6112 (SDW) (D.N.J.)
• SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Excel Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 356 F.3d 1357 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
• TAP Pharm. v. Atrix Labs, Inc. and Sanofi-Synthelabo, 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17118 (N.D. Ill. 2004)
• Glaxo Wellcome Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 136 F. Supp. 2d 316 (D. Del. 2001)
• Glaxo Wellcome Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., 107 F. Supp. 2d 477 (D. Del. 2000)
• IDEC Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., Civil Action No. 01 CV 1638 JM (JAH) (S.D. Cal.)
• Glaxo Wellcome Inc. v. Pharmadyne Corporation, 32 F. Supp. 2d 265 (D. Md. 1998)
• Glaxo Wellcome Inc. v. Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc., 1998 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19774 (N.D. Ohio 1998)
• Glaxo Inc. v. Geneva Pharmaceuticals Inc., 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21897 (D.N.J. 1995)

Consumer Products

• Conopco, Inc. [Unilever] v. Princeton Biomeditech, Inc., Civil Action No. 97-6254 (KSH) (D.N.J.) (reported as Inverness Medical Switz. v. Princeton Biomeditech Corp., 309 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2002))
• Conopco, Inc. [Unilever] v. Warner-Lambert Co., Civil Action No. 97-CV-101 (KSH) (D.N.J.) (reported as Inverness Medical Switz. v. Warner Lambert, 309 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2002))
• Procter & Gamble Co. v. Lever Brothers Co., Civil Action No. C-1-98-390 (HJW) (W.D. Ohio)

Biomedical Devices

• Novamedix Ltd. v. Kinetic Concepts Inc., Civil Action No. SA-92-CA-0177 (FB) (W.D. Tex.)
• N.A.D., Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, Civil Action No. 91-2241 (NLS) (E.D. Pa.)

Cable Television and Semiconductors

• In the Matter of Certain Semiconductor Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, Investigation No. 337-TA-470 (ITC 2003)
• General Instrument Corp. v. Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., Civil Action No. 89-4624 (HAA) (D.N.J.)
• In the Matter of Certain Erasable Programmable Read Only Memories, Investigation No. 337-TA-276, USITC Pub. No. 2196 (March 16, 1989), aff'd in part, reversed in part and vacated in part, Intel Corp. v. U.S. ITC, 946 F.2d 821 (Fed. Cir. 1991)

Electro-Mechanical Devices

• SimKar Lighting Fixture Co. v. The Genlyte Group Inc., 906 F. Supp. 967 (D.N.J. 1995)
• Automated Packaging, Inc. v. Advanced Poly Packaging, Inc., Case No. 5:96 CV 1395 (N.D. Ohio)