Mike Furrow is a former medicinal chemist who counsels life sciences innovators on all aspects of patent and related regulatory strategy from the early discovery stages through product launch and evolution. His clients range from nascent startups to venerable global biopharma companies. With a focus on disputes, Mike has handled patent actions in federal courts and before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office concerning more than a dozen small molecule drugs, as well as antibody medicines, genetically modified organisms, and various other laboratory tools and techniques. Mike’s background as a chemist affords him an intimate understanding of the challenges innate to the discovery of new medicines, and clients value his resulting drive to help them explore creative ways to maximize market exclusivities.
Combining his technical prowess with his litigation mindset, Mike is known for exhaustively exploring the facts and pushing the envelope on merits strategy. He engages with the technology at a level that permits him to develop strong relationships with inventors, scientific officers, technical experts and, ultimately, the fact-finder.
Mike has authored several peer-reviewed scientific articles in preeminent chemistry journals concerning novel stereoselective synthetic, bond-forming, and redox methods for use in the synthesis of complex molecules and was the recipient of research grants from the American Chemical Society and National Science Foundation. Mike also briefly worked as a bench chemist conducting drug discovery at a leading biotechnology company that focuses on therapies for viral infections and liver diseases. He is listed in the 2021 and 2022 editions of IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists, has been recognized repeatedly in the New York Metro edition of Super Lawyers magazine, and is a regular author for LexisNexis Practical Guidance® and other topical publications.
Defending a pharmaceutical company in a patent action filed by a non-practicing patent holder concerning the client’s commercial drug product.
Defending a nutraceutical company in a patent and contract dispute filed by a competitor.
Counseling a biotechnology startup on all IP needs.
Counseling a pharmaceutical company on portfolio strategy for COVID-19 therapeutics.
Counseling a pharmaceutical company on IP and regulatory strategy for an antiviral drug.
Represented a pharmaceutical company in Hatch-Waxman litigations concerning a drug for early onset childhood epilepsy.
Represented a pharmaceutical company in Hatch-Waxman litigations concerning a drug for treatment of opioid-induced constipation.
Counseled a pre-commercial biopharmaceutical company on portfolio strategy and development partnerships.
*Represented two major pharmaceutical companies and a university in Hatch-Waxman litigations concerning a blockbuster prostate cancer drug.
*Represented a leading research university in connection with various adversarial patent actions in the DNA sequencing space.
*Represented a major biopharma company in Hatch-Waxman litigations concerning a drug for a rare metabolic disease.
*Counseled a major pharmaceutical company on patent infringement exposure prior to launch of a now-blockbuster cancer drug.
*Represented two major life sciences companies in Hatch-Waxman litigations concerning a blockbuster antibiotic drug.
*Counseled a major pharmaceutical company in connection with potential acquisition of a patent portfolio covering an ovarian cancer drug.
*Represented a major biotechnology company in litigation concerning genetically modified animals useful for identifying antibody therapies.
*Counseled a major life science company on scientific experiments to support a citizen petition to the Food and Drug Administration seeking heightened standards for demonstrating bioequivalence to reference antibiotic drug.
*Represented two major pharmaceutical companies in Hatch-Waxman litigations concerning a blockbuster drug product for GI disorders.
*Counseled a major biopharma company in connection with various reexaminations of patents concerning a blockbuster antithrombotic drug.
*Represented a major biotechnology company in Hatch-Waxman litigations concerning a hyperparathyroidism drug.
*Counseled a major pharmaceutical company in connection with potential acquisitions of other life science companies.
*Represented a major pharmaceutical company and a university in Hatch-Waxman litigations concerning various blockbuster antiviral drugs.
*Experience gained by attorney prior to joining Kilpatrick Townsend
Insights View All
- Adversarial Patent Prosecution℠
- Asset Creation - Prosecution & Counseling
- Life Sciences Patent Disputes
- FDA Regulation
- Intellectual Property
- ITC Section 337
- Licensing, Transactions & Monetization
- Market Protection - Opinions & Dispute Avoidance
- Patent Due Diligence
- Patent Litigation
- Post-Grant Proceedings
Harvard University J.D. (2007)
Harvard University Ph.D. (2004) Chemistry, National Science Foundation Fellow
Harvard College A.B. (1999) Chemistry, summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, American Chemical Society Research Grantee
New York (2008)
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 Southern District of New York
New York Intellectual Property Law Association, Member
Federal Circuit Bar Association, Member
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.