Ashley Cade

Trial Court Matters

• ToolGen v. Vertex (D. Mass.) – Representing Vertex in patent litigation brought by ToolGen concerning Vertex’s groundbreaking gene-editing therapy, Casgevy®.
• New Directions v. Abbott Laboratories Inc. et al. (D. Del.) – Representing Abbott in patent litigation brought by New Directions.
• Merck v. Surrozen (P.T.A.B.) – Successfully represented Surrozen in post-grant review proceedings initiated by Merck regarding Surrozen’s platform technology for Wnt surrogate molecules. The Director declined to institute review because Merck “failed to show a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect to the challenged claims.”
• Lupin v. TranspireBio (S.D. Fla.) – Successfully represented Lupin in trade secret misappropriation action against TranspireBio. Before the case settled, won key Daubert, summary judgment and other important pre-trial rulings.
• Eli Lilly v. Multiple Defendants (Various courts) – Represented Eli Lilly in patent litigation against multiple generics involving Lilly’s Reyvow® (lasmiditan hemisuccinate) for the treatment of migraines.
• Ferring v. Finch (D. Del.) – Represented patent holders Finch Therapeutics and the University of Minnesota in a declaratory judgment action brought by Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. and Rebiotix Inc., in which Finch and the University alleged that Rebiotix’s RBX2660, a microbiota-based product for reducing the rate of recurrence of Clostridiodes difficile infection, infringed multiple patents owned by Finch and the University. In August 2024, the jury determined that Ferring willfully infringed three patents and awarded Finch $25 million in addition to royalties.
• Certain Products Containing Tirzepatide and Products Purporting to Contain Tirzepatide (ITC, 337-TA-1377) – Represented Eli Lilly at the ITC against several importers of falsely marked and/or advertised tirzepatide products, the active ingredient in Lilly’s Mounjaro® and Zepbound®. The Commission issued a general exclusion order preventing importation of products containing or purporting to contain tirzepatide that infringe Lilly’s Mounjaro® trademark and/or are falsely designated in a way that suggests the product is associated with Lilly or has received FDA approval.
• BMS v. Multiple Defendants (Various courts) – Represented Bristol-Myers Squibb in numerous Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigations regarding cancer therapy Sprycel® (dasatinib). Sprycel® is a cancer drug used to treat patients with chronic myelogenous leukemia and Philadelphia chromosome positive acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Cases settled during fact and expert discovery.
• Par Pharma v. Eagle Pharms. (D. Del.) – Represented Eagle Pharmaceuticals in patent litigation brought by Par Pharma companies involving Eagle’s ANDA for the generic version of Par's Vasostrict® (vasopressin injection) for the treatment of hypotension/low blood pressure in patients experiencing vasodilatory shock. After a bench trial, the Court found that Eagle’s ANDA product did not infringe Par’s asserted patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s judgment of noninfringement in a precedential opinion.
• Represented biosimilar drug maker in all phases of patent dance proceedings under the BPCIA and early stages of litigation.
• Represented Samsung Electronics in patent litigation brought by Greenthread concerning semiconductor devices. Case settled during expert discovery.
  

Appellate Matters

• Global Tubing v. Tenaris (Fed. Cir.) – Successfully overturned the district court’s summary judgment of inequitable conduct against Tenaris, which resulted in a precedential decision.
• Pacira v. eVenus (Fed. Cir.) – Represented patentee Pacira in an appeal from a bench trial concerning Pacira’s patents covering its highly successful Exparel product. Case settled after Pacira filed its opening brief.
• DexCom v. Abbott Diabetes Care (Fed. Cir.) – Represented Abbott in multiple appeals from IPRs challenging DexCom’s patents, in which the PTAB held unpatentable multiple claims in several patents. The IPR appeals were part of a larger global dispute between Abbott and DexCom. After the parties settled, the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB’s decision in one IPR, and DexCom voluntarily dismissed the others.