Joy Arnold joined Heller Ehrman in 2007 and is a member of the Firm’s Intellectual Property Litigation Practice Group. Her practice focuses on all aspects of intellectual property litigation, with an emphasis on complex patent litigation involving the pharmaceutical and chemical arts.

Experience

Ms. Arnold has prepared, tried and argued large-scale litigation matters related to pharmaceuticals, chemicals, mechanical and medical devices, food products, microprocessor architecture and semiconductor packaging. Prior to law school, Ms. Arnold  worked in the Department of Cardiovascular Biochemistry of Bristol-Myers Squibb and in the Department of Molecular Biology of GlaxoSmithKline. She has authored several publications concerning the effects of various pharmaceutical products on platelet aggregation and malignant cell proliferation.

Representative Engagements

Prior to joining Heller Ehrman

• Successfully represented the declaratory judgment plaintiffs in a three-month patent infringement jury trial involving a lung surfactant replacement drug for the treatment of respiratory distress syndrome. The District Court ruled that the patent owners were barred under the principles of equitable estoppel from asserting patents against plaintiffs and also had failed to meet their burden of proving infringement. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. A subsequent award of attorney fees by the District Court was reversed by the Federal Circuit. In a case of first impression, the Federal Circuit determined that equitable estoppel could not give rise to an exceptional case warranting the imposition of this penalty. Forest Laboratories, Inc. and ONY, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories and Tokyo Tanabe Co. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York).
• Defended a large pharmaceutical company in an ANDA patent litigation regarding ACE inhibitor formulations. Represented the client at an evidentiary Markman hearing, a summary judgment hearing, and trial. Warner-Lambert Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey). Represented the same client in a summary judgment hearing and on appeal in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The Federal Circuit mandated the claim construction advocated for the client in the related case. Schwarz Pharma, Inc., Schwarz Pharma AG and Warner-Lambert Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey).
• Represented plaintiff in industry-wide litigation and interference-related arbitration arising from patents on modular total hip implant devices. Priority of invention awarded to clients (Noiles and Johnson & Johnson) and litigation subsequently settled. Noiles v. Church, Interference No. 102,732; Joint Medical Products Corporation v. Depuy Inc. et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut).
• Successfully defended major eye-care products manufacturer in a patent litigation regarding the antibacterial properties of contact lens care products containing proteolytic enzymes and antimicrobial agents. Represented the client at a trial and an evidentiary Markman hearing prior to settlement. Bausch & Lomb Inc. v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York).
• Represented defendant in patent infringement action pertaining to chip scale packaging technology.  Litigation success preserved client’s extensive licensing program.  Texas Instruments Incorporated v. Tessera, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California).
• Represented defendant in ANDA litigation concerning ophthalmic eye care product. Client obtained favorable settlement on eve of trial. Merck & Co., Inc. v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. (U.S. District Court of the District of Delaware).
• Represented plaintiff in patent infringement action pertaining to microprocessor circuitry. Client obtained favorable settlement on eve of trial. Via Technologies, Inc. and Centaur Technology, Inc. v. Intel Corporation (U.S. District Court of the Western District of Texas).
• Represented defendant in patent infringement action pertaining to method for pasteurization of egg products. While proceedings were pending, defendant was acquired by plaintiff. Michael Foods, Inc. and North Carolina State University v. Papetti's Hygrade Egg Products, Inc. (U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey).
• Represented medical device manufacturer in connection with due diligence investigation associated with the company’s initial public offering.

Publications

• “Should ANDA Defendants Get Juries?,”  National Law Journal  04.15.2002
• “Split Trials Skirt Privilege Dilemma,”  National Law Journal  05.14.2001
• “Patent Business and Litigation Issues for Universities,”  From IP to IPO:  Key Issues In Commercialising University Technology, 37 (Joff Wild ed.), 2005  
• “Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Confront New Patent Infringement Considerations and Increased Anti-Competitive Scrutiny In Connection With Hatch-Waxman Act Litigation,”  IP Value 2004: Building And Enforcing Intellectual Property Value: An International Guide For The Boardroom, 118 (Joff Wild ed.), 2004  
• “Recent Hatch Waxman Reform: Balancing Innovation, Competition and Affordability,”  IP Value 2005: Building and Enforcing Intellectual Property Value: An International Guide for the Boardroom, 107 (Joff Wild ed.), 2005  
• “The Effect Of Proposed Patent Reform Legislation On Hatch Waxman’s Abbreviated New Drug Application Procedures,”  IP Value 2007:  Building and Enforcing Intellectual Property Value:  An International Guide for the Boardroom, 107 (Joff Wild ed.), 2007  
• “Authorized Generics: The Latest Challenge To The Hatch-Waxman Act,” IP Value 2007  Building and Enforcing Intellectual Property Value:  An International Guide for the Boardroom, 107 (Joff Wild ed. 2007);