Kyle Musgrove has been litigating intellectual property cases for more than 15 years. His practice primarily focuses on pharmaceutical litigation related to the Hatch-Waxman Act and usually involves the representation of the ANDA applicant. Mr. Musgrove's experience includes acting as lead trial counsel as well as lead appellate counsel. He has also acted as lead counsel at both trial and on appeal when the earlier phases of those cases were handled by other counsel.
A number of Mr. Musgrove's ANDA cases have involved drug products with sales exceeding $1 billion per year. Despite the high stakes, Mr. Musgrove has successfully obtained judgments invalidating and/or holding non-infringed the asserted claims of patents alleged to cover those products. In some instances, Mr. Musgrove's strategic approach to the litigation has facilitated favorable settlements for his clients while avoiding the uncertainties and expense associated with protracted litigation.
In addition to his Hatch-Waxman practice, Mr. Musgrove has litigated cases in a variety of technologies including paper and pulp bleaching, optics, cervical collars, medical devices and imaging, nutritional supplements, vaccines and methods of drug delivery. His practice includes the representation of both patentees and alleged infringers. His litigation practice has also encompassed practice before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, various district courts, and the International Trade Commission.
Further aspects of Mr. Musgrove's practice include conducting interference proceedings, counseling clients regarding possible infringement or invalidity issues, managing patent prosecution portfolios for major international clients and transactional work relating to intellectual property.
Mr. Musgrove previously authored an annually updated chapter relating to the intersection of the patent and antitrust laws for Aspen Publishing. He has also previously been a co-editor of Unfair Competition and the ITC, a handbook on practice before the ITC in Section 337 investigations.
Mr. Musgrove was a partner at an intellectual property boutique prior to joining Haynes and Boone.
Representative Appellate Work
- Alza Corp. and McNeil-PPC, Inc. v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Andrx Corp., No. 2009-1350, 603 F.3d 935 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (argued)
- Impax Laboratories, Inc. v. Aventis Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 545 F.3d 1312 (Fed. Cir. 2008); earlier opinion reported at 468 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (argued)
- On-Line Technologies, Inc. v. Bodenseewerk Perkin-Elmer GmbH, 386 F.3d 1133 (Fed. Cir. 2004)
- Geneva Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, PLC, 349 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
- Evans Medical Ltd. v. American Cyanamid Co., 215 F.3d 1347 (Fed. Cir. 1999) (unpublished)
Representative Trial Experience
- Alza Corp. and McNeil-PPC, Inc. v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Andrx Corp. (D. Del. 2007)
- Pfizer, Inc. v. Synthon Holdings BV, et al. (M.D.N.C. 2006)
- SmithKline Beecham Corp. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D.N.J. 2005)
- Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline, PLC (E.D. Va. 2002)
Other Representative Matters
- Eisai Inc. v.Banner Pharmacaps, Inc. (D.Del. 2011) (Pending).
- GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Banner Pharmacaps Inc. (D.Del. 2011) (Pending)
- GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Impax Labs. (D.Del. 2011) (Pending)
- Shionogi Pharma et al v. Impax Labs (D.Del. 2010) (Pending)
- Abbott Labs. et al. v. Impax Labs. and Elan Pharma et al. v. Impax Labs. (D.N.J. 2009) (settled favorably)
- In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litigation (D.Del. 2009) (Pending)
- Pfizer Inc. et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (D.N.J. 2008) (Pending)
- Purdue et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (D. Del. 2008) (Dismissed)
- Wyeth v. Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Watson Laboratories, Inc. (D. Del. 2008) (Dismissed)
- Abbott Laboratories v. Impax Laboratories, Inc., (D. Del. 2007) (Settled favorably)
- Certain Endodontic Instruments, No. 337-TA-610 (ITC 2007) (Investigation Dismissed)
- Elan Corp., PLC v. Andrx Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (S.D. Fla. 2005) (Settled favorably)
- Abbott Laboratories, et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (D. Del. 2003) (Infringement portion of case dismissed with prejudice; client's antitrust counterclaims settled favorably)
- On-Line Technologies, Inc. v. Perkin-Elmer Corp., et al. (D. Ct. 1999) (Settled favorably after partial summary judgment of invalidity granted on behalf of client)
- Alcon Labs. v. Bausch & Lomb (N.D. Tex. 1999) (Settled favorably after preliminary injunction was granted on behalf of client)