Dr. Stuart Pollack is a registered patent attorney who concentrates his practice on patent litigation, as well as patent prosecution and counseling and opinion work.
With over 16 trials argued in federal court, 9 appeals, and several cases at the Patent Trials and Appeals Board, Stuart has helped obtain favorable judgments in several suits on behalf of pioneer drug companies, including suits brought under the Hatch-Waxman Act against potential generic entrants. His extensive work has focused on pharmaceutical products and drug substances, polymers, optics and chemical reactors, and he has also worked on cases involving mechanical inventions.
Stuart has successfully represented companies in suits before the International Trade Commission. He has also helped obtain patents for his clients in pharmaceutical and chemical technology at the Patent and Trademark Office.
Prior to joining the firm, Stuart was a partner in the New York City office of an international law firm where he focused on patent litigation. Previously, Stuart was a partner in a law firm based in New York City.
Stuart has published more than a dozen peer-reviewed papers involving metal clusters and nanotechnology for scholarly journals such as those published by the American Physical Society.
Stuart was recognized as a "Life Sciences Star" by The Legal Media Group in 2018 and previously in 2014, he was noted as one of a few preeminent Life Science practitioners in the U.S. Stuart has been listed by the IAM Patent 1000 and was named a New York “Super Lawyer” in 2023 and the 11 years immediately preceding by Super Lawyers magazine. He was recognized as a national “Star” by Euromoney / Institutional Investor's 2009 Benchmark: America's Leading Litigation Firms and Attorneys in the area of Intellectual Property. Additionally, he has been recognized by Legal 500 US.
*Represented a specialty pharmaceutical company, in its challenge to a key patent listed in the Orange Book for a biotechnology company’s treprostinil product. The patent at issue covered three products for treating a rare but deadly disease, pulmonary arterial hypertension. The specialty pharmaceutical company initiated an inter partes review of biotechnology company's patent covering purification of the drug substance, which was also asserted in multiple Hatch-Waxman cases. In a 90-page opinion, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) ruled invalid all claims of this key patent. The decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in an expedited review. The biotechnology company subsequently purchased the specialty pharmaceutical company, and will work with it to develop its new product.
*Represented two biotechnology companies in a patent case for a patent covering use of one of the biotechnology company’s product to treat Chronic Lymphocytic Leukemia, which was asserted against a multinational pharmaceutical company’s medicinal product.
*Represented biotechnology company in patent-infringement and contract suits against a university-affiliated teaching hospital and a biotechnology company regarding our client’s' invention of antibodies used in CAR-T therapy for colon cancer. The case settled favorably for our client.
*Represented a biopharmaceutical company in a Hatch-Waxman case against a developer and manufacturer of generic drugs, regarding a hypertension drug. This only one of a few Hatch-Waxman cases where damaged were tried because the genetic drug company launched their product at risk. A jury initially awarded our $16 million and eventually a larger amount was paid, including supplemental damages and interest. Upon appeal, the jury verdict was upheld by the Federal Circuit in a unanimous decision.
*Represented a Japanese multinational pharmaceutical company in several suits against generic challengers, The patent cases involved the technical analysis of microsphere technology and polymers. In all cases that went to trial, our client won on the district level and upon appeal at the Federal Circuit.
*Represented a pharmaceutical company in two Hatch-Waxman cases against generic pharmaceutical manufacturer, as well as a global pharmaceutical company, regarding our client's flagship product, a topical antiseptic acne treatment.
*Represented a global medical device company in a series of patent infringement actions against a global leader in intravascular imaging brought by both parties against each other. The cases involved control of the market for miniature, catheter-mounted pressure sensors used in interventional cardiology. Our client was found by a jury to not have infringed the intravascular imaging corporation's patents, and other suits brought by the corporation were dismissed on summary judgment.
*Secured a critical patent ruling in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in favor of a Fortune 50 pharmaceutical company. Finding the patent at issue valid and enforceable, the court enjoined two major generic companies from marketing a generic version of the product—a significant antipsychotic drug with annual sales around $2 billion—until the patents expired. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion.
*Secured a judgment of infringement and a permanent injunction in the District of Delaware following bench trials on validity and inequitable conduct against an ANDA applicant. The court found the patent at issue valid and enforceable. The patent in this critical case covers a proton-pump inhibitor which sells nearly $3 billion annually. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed without opinion.
*Secured a judgment and permanent injunction in the Northern District of Illinois following a jury trial on patent validity and bench trial on inequitable conduct. The case settled while the appeal was pending, for $157.5 million.
*Secured a jury verdict in favor of a brand-name pharmaceutical manufacturer in a patent infringement case against an ANDA applicant. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed.
*Represented a brand-name drug manufacturer in multiple patent infringement cases concerning an antibiotic in the Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of Virginia against numerous ANDA applicants.
Advanced Materials Companies
*Represented a coating solutions product company in trade secret case filed by a multinational chemical corporation in the District of Delaware. The case seeks a global injunction preventing our client from selling its products in the U.S. and around the world. The case is currently in discovery.
*Represented Electronic parts supplier in a patent infringement case in the District of Arizona. The trial of case involved the use of epoxy resins used to make printed circuit boards. The jury verdict found completely in our client's favor, awarding $11.5 million, plus $3 million in attorneys' fees. It was considered the 7th largest verdict in Arizona at the time.
*Patent infringement case concerning polymers, micro-optics, metal machining and nickel alloys.
*Represented a large Fortune 50 company in a patent infringement matter regarding freedom to operate and analysis of polyurethane, polycarbonate, and PET light-controlling films for laptops and smartphones, including analysis of the competitor's patents concerning hard and soft segments in polyurethanes. The parties came to a mutual agreement before any litigation was filed.
*Represented a large Fortune 50 company regarding the analysis and freedom to operate regarding polyurethanes containing hard and soft segments.
*Represented a large Fortune 50 company in the analysis of Noryl patent estate, including freedom to operate and proposals for additional patent claims. This concerned certain patents held by our client concerning its Noryl (polyarylene ether) product, and separate matter concerning threat received from a University of Texas professor concerning his patent.
*Experience gained by attorney prior to joining Kilpatrick Townsend
Insights View All
Columbia University School of Law J.D. (1998) Kent Scholar
Northwestern University M.S., Chemistry (1987)
Northwestern University Ph.D., Physical Chemistry (1991)
University of Rochester B.A., Chemistry (1986)
New York (1999)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
U.S. District Court for the Western District of New York
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (1999)
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.