Kyle Musgrove



Education and Clerkships

J.D., University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1995, with honors; Order of the Coif; Holderness Moot Court Bench; Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation

B.S., Chemical Engineering, Tulane University, 1992, Omega Chi Epsilon Honor Society


District of Columbia

New York

North Carolina

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Court Admissions

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia


C. Kyle Musgrove is a patent trial and appellate lawyer. While he is experienced in many types of patent litigation, his primary goal is helping pharmaceutical companies navigate the patent litigation process and bring their products to market pursuant to either an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) application. Kyle also helps and assists clients with advice and litigation relating to biosimilar and biologics applications.

For nearly a quarter of a century, Kyle has focused on patent litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act, particularly in the United States District Courts of Delaware and New Jersey. A number of his cases have involved drug products with sales exceeding $1 billion per year. Despite the high stakes, Kyle has successfully obtained judgments invalidating and/or holding non-infringed the asserted claims of patents alleged to cover those products. In some instances, his strategic approach has facilitated favorable settlements for his clients while avoiding the uncertainties and expense associated with protracted litigation.

Perhaps most significantly, however, clients appreciate Kyle’s understanding that the ultimate goal of any engagement is to aid his clients in the pursuit of their business interests. Litigation is often part of that process, but, ultimately, it is merely a component of the process. And, as such, Kyle crafts litigation strategy in close consultation with clients so as to best achieve the client’s business goals.

Kyle is also familiar with the needs of early-stage generic companies, particularly those based in countries other than the U.S. Kyle works with these clients to explain both the law and the business implications of corporate decision-making. While Kyle and his team have experience with clients in India and Israel (among others), he is particularly experienced in representing clients throughout China and Eastern Asia.

Given his experience in federal courts across the country, non-pharmaceutical clients also turn to Kyle for assistance with patent cases. For example, Kyle has litigated cases in a variety of technologies including paper and pulp bleaching, optics, cervical collars, medical devices, nutritional supplements, and vaccines and other types of biotechnology. Additionally, Kyle has practiced before the United States International Trade Commission and litigated antitrust violations relating to allegations of “sham” litigation brought by patentees.

Kyle also handles appellate proceedings before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. His experience includes briefing and arguing appeals where the underlying district court litigation was handled by other counsel.

Yet further aspects of Kyle's practice include counseling clients regarding possible infringement or invalidity issues and transactional work relating to intellectual property (including negotiating both license and settlement agreements).

Kyle is a frequent author and is often quoted in various media outlets. For example, Kyle previously authored an annually updated chapter relating to the intersection of the patent and antitrust laws for Aspen Publishing. Additionally, LMG Life Sciences, Euromoney Institutional Investor PLC, has recognized Kyle as a "Life Science Star" from 2012-2018.

Professional and Community Activities

  • American Bar Association
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • New York State Bar Association
  • District of Columbia Bar Association
  • Mecklenburg County Bar Association
  • North Carolina State Bar Association

Intellectual Property

Biotechnology | Haynes and Boone, LLP

Haynes and Boone Secures Patent Trial Victory for Prinston Pharmaceutical

Haynes and Boone, LLP won a complete victory in New Jersey federal court for client Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc., a generic drug company.

Trial Experience

  • Sebela Int’l Ltd. v. Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc. et al. (D.N.J. 2014)
  • GlaxoSmithKline LLC v. Banner Pharmacaps, Inc. (D. Del. 2011) 
  • 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)

Selected Client Representations

  • Biogen Int’l GmbH v. Banner Life Sciences LLC (D. Del. 2018) (Case dismissed).
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Impax Labs. (D. Del. 2017) (Case dismissed).
  • Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Savior Lifetec Corp. (E.D.N.C. 2015) (Case dismissed).
  • Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Stason Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. (D.N.J. 2015) (Settled favorably).
  • Takeda GmbH et al. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. (D.N.J. 2015) (Settled favorably).
  • Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical, Inc. (D.N.J. 2015) (Settled favorably).
  • Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc. et al (D.N.J. 2014) (Settled favorably).
  • Teijin Limited et al v. Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc. (D. Del. 2014) (Settled favorably).
  • Astrazeneca Pharmaceuticals LP et al. v. Pharmadax USA, Inc. et al (D.N.J. 2014) (Settled favorably).
  • Eisai Inc. v. Banner Pharmacaps, Inc. (D. Del. 2011) (Settled favorably).
  • Shionogi Pharma et al v. Impax Labs (D. Del. 2010) (Settled favorably).
  • Abbott Labs. et al. v. Impax Labs. and Elan Pharma et al. v. Impax Labs. (D.N.J. 2009) (Settled favorably).
  • Pfizer Inc. et al. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc. (D.N.J. 2008) (Settled favorably).
  • 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).

Appellate Work

  • Eurand Inc. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc., No. 2012-1280 (Argued) 
  • 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)

Email Disclaimer