Overview

Liane M. Peterson is a partner and intellectual property lawyer with Foley & Lardner LLP. Ms. Peterson has extensive experience handling patent litigation in U.S. District Courts and before the U.S. International Trade Commission. She focuses her practice on complex litigation in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology fields, with a particular focus on Hatch-Waxman litigation. Ms. Peterson also has significant experience handling patent litigation for clients in the electronics, semiconductor, financial services, flat glass, automotive, and communications industries. She is a vice chair of the firm’s IP Litigation Practice and member of the Chemical, Biotechnology & Pharmaceutical Practice. She is also a member of the Life Sciences Industry Team.

Ms. Peterson previously worked as a law clerk at the U.S. International Trade Commission in the Office of Unfair Import Investigations dealing with Section 337 investigations of unfair trade practices involving intellectual property rights. Prior to law school she served as a researcher at The Institute for Genomic Research in Rockville, Md.

Education

Ms. Peterson received her J.D., magna cum laude, from George Mason University School of Law (2003), where she was editor-in-chief of the Federal Circuit Bar Journal. She also graduated magna cum laude from the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (B.S., biology, 1997).

Admissions and Professional Memberships

Ms. Peterson is admitted to practice in Virginia and the District of Columbia. She is a member of the American Bar Association, the American Intellectual Property Association, the ITC Trial Lawyers Association and the Federal Circuit Bar Association.

Publications and Presentations

  • “Hatch-Waxman Year-in-Review Panel,” ABA IP Law Section Annual Conference, April 7, 2016
  • “e-Discovery in U.S. Patent Litigation,” Advanced U.S. Patent Litigation Seminar Series, Osaka, Japan and Tokyo, Japan, January 27-28, 2016
  • “Beginning the Litigation: Initial Considerations and Strategies,” U.S. Patent Litigation Seminar Series, Osaka, Japan, May 15, 2014
  • Hatch-Waxman Litigation Seminar, Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association IP Committee, Tokyo, Japan, May 12, 2014
  • “Expert Discovery, Markman Hearings & Preparing for Trial,” U.S. Patent Litigation Seminar Series, Tokyo, Japan, November 14, 2013
  • “Motions for Summary Judgment, Attorney-Client Privilege and ITC Practice,” U.S. Patent Litigation Seminar Series, Tokyo, Japan, September 12, 2013
  • “Managing E-Discovery in U.S. Patent Litigation," AIPPI Journal in Japan, Vol. 54, No. 10, 2009
  • "Duty of Disclosure Requirements: Best Practice for Handling and Managing Disclosure Requirements," TACPI D.C. Round Table Seminar, December 18, 2009
  • "Practical Steps to Address E-Discovery: New Battleground in U.S. IP Litigation," TACPI D.C. Round Table Seminar, August 27, 2009
  • "Strategic Document Management for Corporate IP Practitioners," presented to NGB and clients in Japan, May 19, 2009
  • "Proper Scope of ITC Remedies After Qualcomm," IP Law360, October 22, 2008

Representative Hatch-Waxman, Pharmaceutical and Biotechnology Cases

  • Unimed Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al. v. Sandoz, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-1120 (D. Del.)
  • Unimed Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al. v. Lupin Atlantis Holdings SA, No. 1:15-cv-904 (D. Del.)
  • AstraZeneca LP, et al. v. HEC Pharm Co., Ltd., No. 1:15-cv-1041 (D. Del.)
  • Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc. v. Par Pharmaceutical, Inc., No. :115-cv-886 (D. Del.)
  • Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Technologies Inc., et al., No. 1:15-cv-328 (D. Del.)
  • Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories UT, Inc., No. 1:15-cv-249 (D. Del.)
  • Noven Therapeutics v. Prinston Pharmaceutical, No. 2:14-cv-07400 (D.N.J.)
  • Noven Therapeutics v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-06414 (D.N.J.)
  • Par Pharmaceutical, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC and Aptalis Pharma, No. 1:14-cv-6627 (E.D. Pa.)
  • AstraZeneca v. Sagent Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Ltd., No. 1:14-cv-03547 (D.N.J.)
  • Lyne Laboratories, Inc., et al. v. Lupin Ltd., No. 1:14-cv-10153 (D. Mass.)
  • Unimed Pharmaceuticals LLC, et al. v. Perrigo Co., et al., No. 1:13-cv-236 (D. Del.)
  • Boehringer Ingelheim et al. v. Kremers Urban Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 1:13-cv-01580 (D.N.J.)  
  • Pfizer Inc. et al. v. Kremers Urban, LLC, et al. (D. Del.)
  • Sepracor Inc. et al. v. Pharmaceutical Associates, Inc. (D.N.J.)
  • Schering Corp. v. Geopharma, Inc. (D.N.J.)
  • Sanofi-Aventis v. Ebewe Pharma (D.N.J.)

Representative ITC Cases

  • Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-984
  • Certain Dental Implants, Inv. No. 337-TA-934
  • Certain Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-920
  • Certain Optoelectronic Devices for Fiber Optic Communications, Inv. No. 337-TA-860
  • Certain Motion Sensitive Sound Effects Devices and Image Display Devices and Components and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-773
  • Certain Buffer Systems and Components Thereof Used in Container Processing Lines, Inv. No. 337-TA-609
  • Certain Lighting Control Devices Including Dimmer Switches and/or Switches and Parts Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-599
  • Certain Shirts with Pucker-Free Seams and Methods of Producing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-517

Representative Matters

Showing of
Representing Biota in Section 145 case against the USPTO regarding patent application directed to antiviral drug for influenza.
Represented a large Japanese manufacturer in a complex breach of contract and trade secret misappropriation suit filed by our client's U.S. joint venture partner. The contracts related to engineered polymers made by the joint venture company.
In a patent infringement litigation that Foley handled on behalf of client Asahi Glass Co., Ltd., the largest glass manufacturer in the world, the judge issued a decision upholding the jury verdict by denying all of the defendant's post trial motions in Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. et al. v. Guardian Industries, Inc. In fact, the judge also sanctioned the patent infringer for its inequitable conduct allegations, awarding money sanctions. Our client prevailed on every issue. Final judgment was also entered, with the action for filing with the Court. A brief summary of Judge Robinson's decision: On alleged “improper inventorship,” the judge held that there was sufficient evidence that each of the inventors had some involvement in the invention. On "obviousness," the judge criticized Guardian's expert witness as “cursory,” did not provide a sufficient motivation to try variations of prior art, and did not illuminate his rationale to any degree. On the motion for a new trial, the jury instructions were not in error, and if they were, such error would have been harmless. On “inequitable conduct,” the materiality and intent requirements are separate and the court can not infer intent where it is not proven, with saying that “Defendant’s inequitable conduct argument is based primarily on attorney argument without relevant references in the trial record.” Finally, the judge wrote that, "Insofar as the court agrees with plaintiffs that these theories [regarding amendment of counterclaims] were procedurally barred, and given that defendant’s inequitable conduct theory with respect to Ando and Makino [is] devoid of merit, the court will order defendant to pay plaintiffs’ reasonable costs associated with preparation of their responsive brief.”