I represent companies and research institutions in high-stakes patent infringement cases and other IP disputes.
Jeremy Younkin is a seasoned IP litigator who handles patent infringement disputes and other IP-related litigation, such as disputes over royalty payments and ownership of IP rights. He has represented life sciences clients in significant IP disputes concerning biotherapeutics, recombinant DNA technology, and tools and methods for cellular analysis. He has also handled cases involving an array of subject matter outside the life sciences, from satellite dishes to cosmetic packaging. Jeremy has successfully served as trial counsel in federal court, state court and the ITC.
Contributing author, Annual Review of Intellectual Property Law Developments, ABA Section of Intellectual Property Law (2010)
Co-author, Facing ITC Investigation? What Chinese Biotechnology Companies Should Know About Patent Litigation in the United States International Trade Commission, ASIA PACIFIC BIOTECH NEWS (July 2009)
Experience
Representing Enanta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in patent infringement litigation asserting a patent covering certain protease inhibitors and methods of treating coronavirus against Pfizer Inc. in connection with its PAXLOVID®product.
Representing Elysium Health in defense of District of Delaware lawsuit alleging infringement of two patents related to nicotinamide riboside. Obtained PTAB ruling invalidating half the claims of the asserted patents as anticipated by the prior art and district court summary judgment ruling invalidating the other half under 35 U.S.C. §101. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's decision. ChromaDex, Inc. v. Elysium Health, Inc., 59 F.4th 1280 (Fed. Cir. 2023)
Defended Dutch vegetable breeding company Enza Zaden in an action by Seminis Vegetable Seeds in the Middle District of Florida asserting infringement of a patent related to peppers and a plant variety protection certificate. Case settled after filing motion to dismiss the complaint.
Represented Celsee in District of Delaware patent infringement and false advertising dispute with 10x Genomics concerning instruments for single-cell analysis and associated consumables. Case settled shortly before trial.
Represented University of Massachusetts in dispute over ownership of patents and patent applications involving siRNA technology. Obtained Consent Judgment confirming UMass’ ownership rights.
Lead counsel for all five respondents in ITC investigation concerning lip balm products. Complainants withdrew their complaint against three respondents after we moved to terminate the investigation. The investigation was terminated as to the other two on the basis of settlement agreements.
Trial counsel for Massachusetts Biologic Laboratories of the University of Massachusetts in dispute regarding MedImmune’s royalty obligations under an agreement covering Synagis®, an anti-RSV monoclonal antibody. Won ruling in Maryland state court, after an eight-day trial, that MedImmune must continue to pay royalties. Judgment affirmed on appeal.
Represented Biogen in defense of patent infringement suit brought by Classen Immunotherapies in District of Maryland. Obtained dismissal of all claims with prejudice, an “exceptional” case finding under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and award of attorneys’ fees.
Represented Biogen in District of Delaware patent dispute with Novartis in which Novartis claimed that use of the GS Gene Expression System™ to make biologics infringed Novartis’ patent. Obtained favorable settlement weeks before trial and during the pendency of motions for summary judgment of invalidity and non-infringement.
Represented eight respondents, including European paper manufacturer, in ITC investigation regarding low ignition propensity paper technology. Obtained settlement and worldwide license days before trial.
Successfully defended Biogen in patent dispute with Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland involving patents directed to human CMV regulatory sequences. Obtained writ of mandamus from the Federal Circuit ordering the Eastern District of Texas to transfer the case to the Northern District of California. See In re Genentech, Inc. and Biogen Idec Inc., 566 F.3d 1338 (Fed. Cir. 2009). The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement and the Federal Circuit affirmed. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH v. Genentech, Inc. and Biogen Idec, 473 Fed. Appx. 885 (Fed. Cir. March 22, 2012).
Trial counsel for respondents in ITC investigation concerning two patents related to the use of genetically engineered bacteria to produce lysine. Won ITC ruling invalidating both patents and finding that patent owner had committed inequitable conduct. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed. Ajinomoto Co., Inc. v. ITC, 597 F.3d. 1267 (2010).
Trial counsel for leading manufacturer of mobile satellite dish systems in patent litigation in the District of Minnesota. Obtained jury verdict invalidating the sole asserted claim. Plaintiff did not appeal.
Honors & Involvement
HONORS
Managing IP Patent Star (U.S. National and Massachusetts) (2025)
World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) Leaders (2025)
Panelist, "How Jurisdictions' Primary Remedies Incentivize Innovation and Investment," IPOwners Spring Summit™ (March 2026)
Panelist, “Discretionary Denials at the PTAB: Overview of Recent USPTO Decisions and Federal Circuit Mandamus Petitions, “ Boston Intellectual Property American Inn of Court (October 2025)
Moderator, "The Brulotte Rule: Identifying Problematic Royalty Durations in Patent Licenses," LES USA-Canada 2025 Annual Meeting (October 2025)
Speaker, “At the Crossroads of IP, Regulation, and Antitrust: Update on the Decisions of the European Commission and National Antitrust Authorities," 11th Annual IBA World Life Sciences Conference (June 2025)
Panelist, "IP Transactions: Peering Through the Looking-Glass Without Falling Down a Rabbit Hole," 2023 BIO Intellectual Property Counsels Committee Conference (November 2023)
Speaker, "IP Litigation Concerns Resulting from Remote Work," IPOwners Spring Summit (March 2023)
Speaker, "IP Agreements: Structuring Indemnification and Limitation of Liability Provisions to Allocate Infringement Risk," Strafford CLE Webinar (September 2015)
Speaker, "Shifting Sands: What is Discoverable and Admissible for Damages, Willfulness and Other Purposes," IPO Continuing Legal Education Roundtable (March 2011)
Speaker, "Local Model Patent Rules," IPO Annual Meeting (September 2009)
We use cookies to enhance user experience, improve functionality and performance, and for analysis of website traffic. By clicking “accept”, you agree to the use of cookies. For more information about our cookie policy and the information we collect, please review our Privacy Statement.
Foley Hoag
Email Disclaimer
Transmitting information to us by e-mail unilaterally does not establish an attorney-client relationship or impose an obligation on either the law firm or even the receiving lawyer to keep the transmitted information confidential. By clicking "OK," you acknowledge that we have no obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you submit to us unless we already represent you or unless we have agreed to receive limited confidential material/information from you as a prospective client. Thus, if you are not a client or someone we have agreed to consider as a prospective client, information you submit to us by e-mail may be disclosed to others or used against you.
If you would like to discuss becoming a client, please contact one of our attorneys to arrange for a meeting or telephone conference. If you wish to disclose confidential information to a lawyer in the firm before an attorney-client relationship is established, the protections that the law firm will provide to such information from a prospective client should be discussed before such information is submitted. Thank you for your interest in Foley Hoag.
