Kenneth S. Canfield

• kcanfield@scciplaw.com
• Direct: 973.221.4526 

• Columbia University School of Law - J.D. (2006) 
• Yale University - B.S., Physics (2003)

• States: New Jersey, New York, Connecticut
• District Courts:  District of New Jersey, Eastern District of New York , Southern District of New York, Western District of New York
• Appellate Courts: Federal Circuit
• Other: United States Patent and Trademark Office

Ken prides himself on his creative problem solving and strategic thinking. His dedication to understanding both the nuances of technology at issue and the legal intricacies lead him to develop innovative solutions for his clients.

Ken has practiced as a patent attorney since 2006, with a particular focus on patent litigation. His litigation experience includes pre-suit investigations, discovery, motion practice, claim construction, trial, post-trial proceedings, and appeal. He has litigated cases in district courts across the country, including the District of Delaware, District of New Jersey, Southern District of New York, Western District of New York, Eastern District of Texas, and others. Ken sees trial as the culmination of years of strategic planning. He excels at distilling complicated scientific and legal issues into compelling narratives for the court.

Ken has worked with a wide variety of technologies, including pharmaceuticals, medical devices, electronics, computers, software, physics, financial instruments, and aseptic food packaging. Most recently, he has focused on Hatch-Waxman litigation on behalf of generic pharmaceutical companies. Ken also litigated a number of Hatch-Waxman cases on behalf of branded pharmaceutical companies. Ken's experience in particular cases is listed in more detail below.

In addition to district- and appellate-court litigation, Ken has represented companies in post-grant proceedings in the USPTO, including inter partes reviews, post-grant reviews, and reexaminations, for pharmaceutical and other technology. His advisory experience includes counseling clients with respect to potential transactions, freedom to operate, and patent validity. Ken also has experience prosecuting patents, experience he draws from in when litigating.

From the time he was young, Ken loved science and technology, leading him to obtain a patent before finishing college. His active role in prosecuting that patent, including interviewing one-on-one with the examiner, introduced him to patent law as a potential profession.

For fun, Ken is an avid skier and Yankees fan. But his analytical mind remains at play, as his passion for baseball includes a fascination with sabermetrics, the in-depth, academic study of baseball statistics.

Hatch-Waxman Litigation for Generic Pharmaceutical Companies

• Salix Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Carnegie Pharmaceuticals, LLC et al., 24-10356-ESK (D.N.J) – represented Carnegie re Xifaxan (rifaximin) (irritable bowel syndrome)
• American Regent, Inc. f/k/a Luitpold Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Accord Healthcare, Inc. et al., 24-7791-BRM (D.N.J.) – represented Eugia re selenious acid injection (selenium for nutrition)
• In re Nexletol/Nexlizet ANDA Litigation, 24-5921-JXN (D.N.J.) – represented Aurobindo re Nexetol (bempedoic acid) & Nexlizet (bempedoic acid and ezetimibe) (hypercholesterolemia)
• Azurity Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited et al., 23-23273-JKS (D.N.J.) – represented Aurobindo re Firvanq (vancomycin) (antibiotic)
• Jazz Pharmaceuticals Research UK Limited f/k/a GW Research Limited, 23-3914-MEF (D.N.J.) – represented Zenara re Epidiolex (cannabidiol) (epilepsy)
• Pfizer Inc. et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited, 23-923-GBW (D. Del.) – represented Aurobindo re Vyndaqel (tafamidis meglumine) (transthyretin-mediated amyloidosis)
• Chiesi USA, Inc. et al. v. Eugia Pharma Specialities Limited et al., 23-22-KMW (D.N.J.) – represented Aurobindo and Eugia re Kengreal (cangrelor) (antiplatelet drug)
• AbbVie Inc. et al. v. Alkem Laboratories Limited et al., 22-1423-JLH (D. Del.) – represented Alkem and Zenara re Orilissa (elagolix) (endometriosis)
• Merck KGaA et al. v. Hopewell Pharma Ventures, Inc., et al., 22-1365 (D. Del.) – represented Aurobindo re Mavenclad (cladribine) (multiple sclerosis)
• Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc. et al. v. Zenara Pharma Private Limited, 22-1215-MN (D. Del.) – represented Zenara re Ocaliva (obeticholic acid) (primary biliary cholangitis)
• Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., 22-377-GBW (D. Del.) – represented Aurobindo, Hetero, and Zenara re Steglatro (ertugliflozin) (diabetes)
• Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Eugia Pharma Specialties Limited et al., 22-17-MN (D. Del.) – represented Aurobindo and Eugia re Firmagon (degarelix for injection) (prostate cancer)
• Taro Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd., et al. v. Encube Ethicals Pvt. Ltd., 21-1614-RGA (D. Del.) – represented Encube re Ovide (malathion lotion) (head lice)
• Newron Pharmaceuticals S.p.A et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited et al., 21-843-GBW (D. Del.) – represented Zenara re Xadago (safinamide) (Parkinson’s)
• Merck Sharp & Dohme BV et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. et al., 20-2576-CCC (D.N.J.), 23-2254 (Fed. Cir.) – represented Aspiro, Mankind, and Zenara re Bridion (sugammadex) (reversal of neuromuscular blockade)
• In re Entresto (Sacubitril/Valsartan) Patent Litigation, Nos. 20-md-2930-RGA (D. Del.), 23-2218-RGA (Fed. Cir.) – represented Hetero and Torrent re Entresto (sacubitril/valsartan) (heart failure)
• Allergan, Inc. v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited et al., 21-1808-RGA (D. Del.) – represented Aurobindo and Eugia re Alphagan (brimonidine solution) (glaucoma)
• Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. et al. v. Zenara Pharma Private Ltd. et al., 19-1938-LPS/RGA (D. Del.) – represented Hetero and Zenara re Rexulti (brexpiprazole) (antipsychotic)
• Allergan USA, Inc. et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd. et al., 19-1727-RGA (D. Del.) – represented Hetero re Viberzi (eluxadoline) (irritable bowel syndrome)
• Pfizer Inc. et al. v. Aizant Drug Research Solutions Pvt. Ltd. et al., 19-743-CFC (D. Del.) – represented Hetero re Ibrance (palbociclib) (breast cancer)

Hatch-Waxman Litigation for Brand Pharmaceutical Companies

• Purdue Pharma LP v. Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. 16-11091-DMA (D. Mass.) – represented Purdue re Collegium’s 505(b)(2) application re OxyContin (oxycodone) (pain)
• Purdue Pharma LP et al. v. (various defendants), 15-784-RGA (and others) (D. Del.) – represented Purdue in various cases re OxyContin (oxycodone) (pain)
• BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. et al v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. et al., 14-7203-MAS (D.N.J.) – represented BioMarin re Kuvan (sapropterin) (phenylketonuria)
• Unimed Pharmaceuticals LLC et al v. Perrigo Company et al., 13-236-RGA (D. Del.) – represented Unmited re Androgel (testosterone gel) (testosterone replacement)
• Prometheus Laboratories Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. et al., 11-230, 11-241-FSH (D.N.J.), 14-1634, 14-1635 (Fed. Cir.) – represented Prometheus re Lotronex (alosetron) (irritable-bowel syndrome)
• Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc., 10-6108 (D.N.J.) – represented Jazz re Xyrem (sodium oxybate) (narcolepsy)
• Celgene Corporation v. Natco Pharma Limited et al., 10-5197-SDW (D.N.J.) – represented Celgene re Revlimid (lenalidomide) (multiple myeloma)
• Celgene Corporation v. Barr Laboratories, Inc. et al., 07-286 (D.N.J.) – represented Celgene re Thalomid (thalidomide) (multiple myeloma)

Non-Hatch-Waxman Litigation

• Batinkoff v. Church & Dwight Co., Inc. et al., 18-16388-BRM-LHG (D.N.J.) – represented plaintiff Hollywood actor Randall Batinkoff in a patent infringement action involving a dispensing device for a cosmetic product
• Andrulis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Celgene Corp., 13-1644-RGA (D. Del.) – represented Celgene in a patent-infringement action re Celgene’s Thalomid product
• Leveraged Innovations, LLC v. NASDAQ OMX Group, Inc., et. al., 11-03203-KBF (SDNY) – represented defendant NASDAQ in a patent-infringement action relating to leveraged funds
• Boston Scientific Corporation et al. v. Cook Incorporated et al., 10-11646-DPW (D. Mass.) – represented defendants Standard Sci-Tech and Taewoong in a patent-infringement action relating to stent technology
• Pegasus Development, et. al. v. DirecTV, LLC., et. al., 00-1020-GMS (D. Del.) – represented defendant DirecTV in a patent-infringement action

Post-Grant Proceedings in the USPTO

• Church & Dwight Co., Inc. v. Randall Batinkoff, IPR2020-00168 (PTAB) – represented patent owner Hollywood actor Randall Batinkoff in an inter partes review involving a dispensing device for a cosmetic product
• Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. Purdue Pharma LP et al., PGR2018-00048 (PTAB) – represented patent owner Purdue in a post-grant review relating to a Purdue patent re oxycodone
• Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC et al. v. Purdue Pharma LP et al., IPR2016-01027, -1028, -1412, -1413 (PTAB) – represented patent owner Purdue in various inter partes reviews relating to Purdue’s patents covering OxyContin