Jason G.Winchester

Partner

Chicago + 1.312.269.4373

Collegati

Condividi

Jason Winchester is a trial lawyer with more than 25 years of experience handling complex litigation for companies large and small. Jason's practice focuses on IP and commercial disputes, and he has tried cases to verdict before judges, juries, and arbitral panels throughout the United States.

Jason has represented clients in numerous high-value IP matters, including a recent jury trial win on infringement and validity against AstraZeneca based on its Tagrisso® product, resulting in an award of $107 million in past damages. Jason also has represented innovator pharmaceutical companies in dozens of infringement disputes under the Hatch-Waxman Act related to market-leading products, including numerous successful trials and appeals. In addition, he has prosecuted and defended patent claims relating to medical and other devices. Jason publishes and speaks frequently about developing issues in IP litigation.

In commercial matters, Jason has handled a variety of high-stakes matters including contract disputes, lottery litigation, product liability, consumer fraud, takeover defense, and alleged violations of the False Claims Act. Early in his career, Jason represented a former prosecutor in a highly publicized, months-long trial involving a group known as the "DuPage 7," in which the client was acquitted.

Outside the office, Jason is an amateur musician, and he and his family work to advance research and awareness of childhood stroke.

Esperienze

  • Pharmaceutical company wins $107.5 million jury verdict in patent dispute involving AstraZeneca's lung cancer treatment Tagrisso®Jones Day on behalf of a pharmaceutical company won a jury award of $107.5 million in damages after a five-day trial and less than three hours of jury deliberation.
  • Securities broker-dealer defends unsuitability claims in FINRA arbitration mattersJones Day is defending a large securities broker-dealer in several FINRA arbitrations related to claims of unsuitable investment recommendations.
  • Puma Biotechnology asserts patent infringement claims under Hatch-Waxman Act related to Nerlynx® against SandozJones Day is representing Puma Biotechnology, Inc. in a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action against Sandoz relating to Sandoz's submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application to the FDA seeking approval of a purported generic version of Nerlynx® (neratinib) tablets.
  • Takeda trial win in Hatch-Waxman case involving diabetes products upheld by Federal CircuitJones Day successfully represented Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. in a Hatch-Waxman Act dispute against companies seeking to market generic versions of three diabetes products prior to the expiration of Takeda's patents.
  • Purdue Pharma successfully resolves Hatch-Waxman patent infringement claims against Amneal and Kashiv related to OxyContin®Jones Day successfully represented Purdue Pharma L.P. in related Hatch-Waxman patent infringement actions against defendants Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Kashiv Pharma, LLC, pertaining to the submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application to the FDA seeking approval of generic versions of OxyContin®, a widely prescribed treatment for pain relief.
  • Board of Trustees of Univ. of Illinois files patent infringement action against Aurobindo involving generic versions of Prezista®Jones Day is representing the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois in a patent infringement action against Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. relating to the defendant’s submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application to the FDA seeking approval of generic versions of Prezista® (darunavir), a market-leading protease inhibitor.
  • Purdue Pharma asserts patent infringement claims under Hatch-Waxman Act related to OxyContin® against AbhaiJones Day successfully represented Purdue Pharma L.P. in a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action against the defendant, Abhai LLC's, submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application to the FDA seeking approval of generic versions of OxyContin®, a widely prescribed drug for pain relief.
  • BioMarin asserts patent infringement claims against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories related to powder form of Kuvan®Jones Day successfully represented BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc. in a patent infringement action against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories relating to the defendant's submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application to the FDA seeking approval of a powder form of generic versions of Kuvan® (sapropterin dihydrocholride), the only FDA-approved treatment to reduce blood phenylalanine levels in persons with BH-4 responsive phenylketonuria (PKU).
  • BioMarin resolves patent infringement claims against Par Pharmaceutical related to Kuvan®Jones Day client BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc. successfully resolved a patent infringement action against Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. relating to the defendant's submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application to the FDA seeking approval of a generic version of Kuvan® (sapropterin dihydrocholride), the only FDA-approved treatment to reduce blood phenylalanine levels in persons with BH-4 responsive phenylketonuria (PKU).
  • Purdue Pharma successfully resolves Hatch-Waxman claims against companies seeking to make generic version of transdermal patch Butrans®Jones Day client Purdue Pharma L.P. successfully resolved a patent infringement action it brought under the Hatch-Waxman Act against two companies that sought FDA approval to market a generic version of Purdue's Butrans® product prior to the expiration of certain patents owned by Purdue.
  • BioMarin asserts patent infringement claims against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories related to Kuvan®Jones Day represented BioMarin Pharmaceutical, Inc. in a patent infringement action against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories relating to the defendant's submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application to the FDA seeking approval of a generic versions of Kuvan® (sapropterin dihydrocholride), the only FDA-approved treatment to reduce blood phenylalanine levels in persons with BH-4 responsive phenylketonuria (PKU).
  • AbbVie subsidiary asserts patent infringement claims under Hatch-Waxman Act related to AndroGel® against Perrigo and WatsonJones Day represented Unimed Pharmaceuticals, LLC, a subsidiary of AbbVie, Inc., in a consolidated Hatch-Waxman patent infringement action against Perrigo Company and Watson Laboratories, Inc., relating to the defendants' submission of Abbreviated New Drug Applications to the FDA seeking approval of generic versions of AndroGel® 1.62%, a widely-prescribed treatment for males with low testosterone levels.
  • BioMarin files antitrust suit against Dr. Reddy'sJones Day represented BioMarin Pharmaceutical Inc. ("BioMarin") in an antitrust suit against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Inc. ("Dr. Reddy's") stemming from Dr. Reddy's request that BioMarin provide samples of its FDA-approved Kuvan® product to support Dr. Reddy's efforts to obtain FDA approval for a generic version of Kuvan®.
  • Purdue Pharma pursues patent infringement suit involving OxyContin(R) against generic drug maker TevaJones Day represents Purdue Pharma L.P., The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., and Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P. in a Hatch-Waxman Act patent infringement litigation matter relating to Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.'s attempt to market a generic version of Purdue's controlled-release OxyContin(R) pain relief medication.
  • Board of Trustees of Univ. of Illinois settles patent infringement dispute involving generic version of Prezista®Jones Day represented the Board of Trustees of the University of Illinois in consolidated patent infringement actions against Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Lupin Ltd., Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., relating to the defendants' submission of Abbreviated New Drug Applications to the FDA seeking approval of generic versions of Prezista® (darunavir), a market-leading protease inhibitor.
  • R.J. Reynolds seeks reduction in 2003 settlement paymentsJones Day represents R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company in a pending arbitration under the 1998 Master Settlement Agreement with various U.S. States and Territories in which R.J. Reynolds and other tobacco company signatories seek an over $1 billion reduction in their 2003 settlement payments.
  • Potash Corporation successfully defends historic $43.1 billion hostile takeover bidFollowing an arduous three-month battle, Jones Day's client, Potash Corporation of Saskatchewan, Inc., successfully repelled BHP Billiton's hostile $43.1 billion tender offer for all of PotashCorp's shares in November 2010.
  • Abbott prevails in patent infringement action against SandozJones Day represented Abbott Laboratories ("Abbott") in a patent infringement action brought under the Hatch-Waxman Act in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware against Sandoz, Inc.
  • Morton Arboretum defeats unconstitutional takings claim and secures award of attorneys' feesJones Day represented The Morton Arboretum in a claim brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that Morton conspired with the Forest Preserve District of DuPage County, Illinois, to unconstitutionally "take" the plaintiff's land.
  • Celgene licenses patents to Teva for marketing generic version of Focalin capsules and tabletsJones Day represented Celgene in its licensing to Teva Pharmaceuticals of patents related to the manufacture of Celgene's Focalin XR capsules and Focalin IR tablets.
    •

    July 2024 Commentary

    Federal Circuit Revives Induced Infringement Claims Despite "Skinny Label" Carve-Out

    April 2024 Commentary

    FTC Weighs In on Orange Book Listing of Drug-Device Patents

    October 2022 Commentary

    USPTO Seeks Public Input on Improving Patent "Robustness and Reliability"

    February 2022 Commentary

    Tillis Urges FDA, USPTO to Investigate Potential False Narrative by Drug Critics

    January 2022 Commentary

    Inducement Suit Proceeds Against Insurance Company for Encouraging Use of Generic Drug

    October 2021 White Paper

    Executive Order on Promoting Competition in the American Economy: A Focus on Patent and Drug Law to Reduce Health Care Spending

    September 2021 Commentary

    Patent Linkage and Article 76 Proceedings in China: A Litigator's Perspective

    September 2021 Commentary

    Federal Circuit Vacates Judgment, Reinstates Jury's Verdict of Induced Infringement

    April 2021 Commentary

    FTC Notches Win in Fifth Circuit Reverse Payment Patent Settlement Case

    March 2016 Alert

    Federal Circuit Upholds Broad Hatch-Waxman Venue Options for Innovator Pharmaceutical Companies
    Vedi Insight

    • October 16, 2024
      Skinny Labeling & Induced Infringement RevisitedAnalyzing the Latest in Section viii Carveout CasesACI Paragraph IV Disputes, Masters Edition
    • June 6, 2024
      Monetizing Your Intellectual Property: Key Enforcement Considerations
    • March 22, 2023
      Hatch Waxman & BPCIA Fundamentals - ACI's 40th Annual FDA Boot Camp
    • November 8, 2022
      Constitutional and Other Relevant Law on Police-Community Encounters
    • October 18, 2022
      Paragraph IV Disputes and Litigation - ACI Hatch Waxman Boot Camp
    • October 12, 2022
      The Latest Existential Threat: Climate Change and Public Nuisance Litigation
    • January 24, 2022
      Policing First Amendment Activity
    • January 28, 2021
      Overview of Police Reform Legislation
    • January 28, 2021
      Dismantling, Defunding, and Transforming the Police
    • January 12, 2021
      Police Reform: Legal Profession Effecting Change
    • October 30, 2020
      Chicago Police Department Consent Decree
    • October 30, 2020
      Overview of Civilian Police Oversight Boards
    • April 17, 2019
      Truth, Lies and Facts: Best Practices for Witness Interviews
    • November 8, 2018
      The Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine: What In-House Counsel Need to Know
    • October 2, 2018
      The Future of Venue and Jurisdiction: Examining the Latest Interpretations and Applications of TC Heartland, ACI Paragraph IV Disputes Master Symposium
    • June 7, 2018
      IP Right Now: Hot Topics in Patent and Trademark Law
    • June 1, 2017
      Antitrust Issues Arising from Pharmaceutical Drug Product Litigation
    • December 8, 2016
      The Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine: What In-House Counsel Need To Know
    • June 24, 2016
      Are You Exceptional? Recent Developments in the Law of Attorney Fee Shifting and Enhanced Damages
    • September 30-October 1, 2015
      Ethics of Paragraph IV Practice: New Developments Impacting Hatch-Waxman Litigation; American Conference Institute Paragraph IV Disputes Master Symposium
    • September 30, 2014
      It's All About Timing: Exploring the Surge in Premature Paragraph IV Notice Filings and its Consequences, presenter, American Conference Institute Paragraph IV Disputes Master Symposium
    • June 9-10, 2014
      ANDA Litigation 101: Paragraph IV Disputes Primer, co-chair and presenter, American Conference Institute Hatch Waxman Boot Camp
    • October 4, 2013
      Pros and Cons of At-Risk Launches: Lessons from Protonix; American Conference Institute, Master Symposium - Paragraph IV Disputes
    • December 4, 2012
      Divided Infringement: New Rules for Infringement of Method Patents; American Conference Institute - Paragraph IV Disputes
    • June 7, 2012
      Situational Ethics: Privilege Developments That In House Counsel Need to Know, Jones Day Chicago 2012 MCLE University
    • May 19, 2011
      Finding Our Way In the Tort Arena, Jones Day MCLE University
    • April 10, 2011
      The Attorney-Client Privilege and Work Product Doctrine: Trends and Case Law
    • October 2007
      Average Wholesale Price Litigation and Recent Developments in False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Law
    • September 2007
      What's the Case and Controversy? Developments in Declaratory Judgment Law
    • September 2006
      Winning Through Settlement: Strategies for Resolving Class Actions and Multi-Jurisdictional Litigation

    Prima di procedere all'invio, si prega di notare:

    il contenuto del presente sito web è a scopo esclusivamente informativo e non può essere considerato un parere legale o altro tipo di consulenza professionale. L'invio o la ricezione della presente email non è atta ad instaurare alcun rapporto cliente/avvocato. Le informazioni inviate tramite questa funzione al nostro Studio non saranno coperte da vincolo di riservatezza o confidenzialità fintanto che non ci sia stato conferito e non sia stato da noi accettato un incarico professionale. Inviando il messaggio confermate di aver preso visione e accettato il contenuto di questa informativa.