Goodwin
Firm overview:
Global giant Goodwin Procter represents national and international companies across industries on the full range of IP issues, spanning patents, copyrights, trademarks, and trade secrets. In the US, where it operates from eight offices, Goodwin is seen by peers as a prominent firm competing for patent work.
Attorneys in Goodwin’s Patent Prosecution & Counseling practice focus on developing and implementing patent procurement, management and exploitation policies for clients. The firm’s well-established Patent Litigation team has litigated hundreds of patent matters across the US, securing preliminary injunctions, declaratory and summary judgments, advantageous settlements and other relief.
Goodwin is regarded highly for its activity before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and has substantial experience before the Federal Circuit, the International Trade Commission (ITC) and the US Court of Federal Claims.
Goodwin’s life sciences expertise is particularly strong; it operates a Life Sciences & Technology Arbitrations practice and employs more than 220 dedicated lawyers and patent agents across all major life sciences hubs in the US, Europe, and Asia. The firm works with life sciences companies throughout the corporate lifecycle—from startup and commercial-stage to maturity—as well as investors, banks, and others in the life sciences ecosystem. Goodwin counts Moderna, which developed the COVID-19 vaccine, among its clients.
Team overview:
Goodwin’s patent specialists work closely with the firm’s patent litigators, some of whom are former patent examiners with the US Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Co-chairs of the Intellectual Property group Catherine McCarty in Boston, and James Riley in Silicon Valley, are key contacts for the Patent Prosecution & Counseling practice.
Co-chair of Intellectual Property Litigation, Elaine Herrmann Blais in Boston, and Brett Schuman in San Francisco, are core members of the Patent Litigation practice. Herrmann Blais counsels clients and advocates to Congress on legislation impacting the pharmaceutical industry, including the Biologics Price Competition & Innovation Act and the America Invents Act.
Noteworthy moves from the team over the past year include the departure of technology litigator and trial lawyer Neel Chatterjee, now at King & Spalding; Andrew Ong and Amadou Kilkenny Diaw, who also have technology-focused practices, followed Chatterjee to the firm.
New additions include Carl Morales, who joined as a partner in the firm’s New York office and has experience in developing and prosecuting patent portfolios for small molecule drug products.
Key matters:
- United Services Automobile Association v PNC Bank
Goodwin’s William Jay is on the team representing United Services Automobile Association in a patent dispute with PNC Bank over mobile check-deposit technology.
In June 2025 a US appeals court sided with PNC Bank and overturned a $218 million verdict won by USAA, ruling that the patents USAA had accused PNC of infringing were invalid.
USAA has asked the Supreme Court to review the case, challenging the Federal Circuit’s interpretation of abstract-idea jurisprudence.
- Actavis Laboratories v United States
Goodwin represented generics manufacturer Actavis—now Allergan, which is part of Abbvie—in a patent infringement dispute that involved a court ruling on litigation costs.
Actavis sued the Commissioner in the Court of Federal Claims to recover what it contended was an overpayment in litigation costs. In March 2025, Circuit Judge Leonard Stark affirmed that Actavis’s defence costs were deductible as ordinary business costs, meaning the company stood to receive a tax rebate of approximately $12 million from the US government.
The litigation originally arose after Actavis was sued for alleged patent infringement in 2008 and 2009 by manufacturers of branded drugs following Actavis filing Abbreviated New Drug Applications (ANDAs) for generic versions of their products.
- Nike v New Balance Athletics
A Goodwin team of Douglas Kline, Amadou Diaw, Jacqueline Genovese Bova and Sarah Casey advises New Balance, which is being sued by Nike for alleged infringement of its Flyknit patented technology. In August 2024 a district court denied New Balance’s motion to partially dismiss Nike’s claims.
The case is Nike v New Balance Athletics, Case No. 1:23-cv-12666-JEK, US District Court for the District of Massachusetts, 2024.
Clients:
Actavis, Moderna, New Balance, United Services Automobile Association
