Kristan Lansbery is an associate in Arnold & Porter LLP's Intellectual Property group. Her practice focuses on intellectual property counseling and patent litigation in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology arts. Dr. Lansbery's experience spans the globe in the areas of drugs and biologics, pharmaceutical formulations, diagnostics, agricultural biotechnology, genomics, peptide and protein engineering, vaccines, and molecular biology. She has in-depth experience with the issues faced by large and smaller clients that developed through work on divergent matters including prosecution, reexaminations, interferences, litigation, and licensing, as well as outreach through Women in Bio.
Dr. Lansbery's experience includes:
- Lead counsel for post-allowance proceedings at the US Patent and Trademark Office such as re-exam, reissue, and interference.
- Litigation counsel in US district court and English patent and contractual disputes.
- Appeal counsel at the US Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.
- Advising and coordinating domestic and worldwide patent prosecution, including European and other oppositions.
- Noninfringement and invalidity analysis and multiple due diligences.
While obtaining her law degree from George Washington Law School in 2005, she worked as patent agent for Arnold & Porter for three years. Prior to joining Arnold & Porter, Dr. Lansbery's research experience included an assortment of techniques and model systems to study a wide variety of biological topics, including endocrinology, neurology, cellular biology, microbiology, and post-translational processing, and enzymology. As part of her training, she received funding from the Howard Hughes Institute, a Coleman Wheeler, Jr. Fellowship, and a scholarship to attend a course at Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory.
Intellectual Property Representative Matters
US Patent and Trademark Office
- Successful patent interference as the junior party before the US Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences and on appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (to read the full decision, please click here). The patent claims are directed to methods involving the administration of glucogen-like-peptide-1 (GLP-1) for amelioration of organ tissue injury caused by reperfusion of blood flow following a period of ischemia. For more information on the case, please click here.
- Argued successfully for plant breeding claims over an obviousness rejection at the US Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences resulting in US Patent No. 8,013,210.
- Patent prosecution for clients including public and venture-funded companies, such as AmpTec GmbH, Alper BioTech, Inc., Altria Client Services Inc., Amylin Pharmaceuticals, Blasticon Biotechnologische Forschung GmbH, Diiachi Sankyo, Monsanto Company, National Retina Institute, OncoScience AG, PLS Design GmbH, Sapphire Energy, Inc., Seminis Vegetable Seeds, Inc., Sirius Genomics, Inc., Urban Brands, University Hospital of Hamburg, Xenova Group, and Viracine.
- Enzo Biochem, Inc., et al. v. Amersham PLC, et al., Litigation counsel for GE Healthcare in pending patent and contract litigation involving labeled nucleic acids and their detection.
- Johnson & Johnson et al. v. Boston Scientific Corp., Successfully defended Boston Scientific Corporation against patent infringement claims on their drug eluting stent technology.
- GSK v. Abbott Laboratories, Litigation counsel for GlaxoSmithKline in patent license dispute concerning monoclonal antibody technology and US post-grant procedures in an English trial.
- Applera Corp. and Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. v. MJ Research, Inc., Litigation counsel for Roche Molecular Systems, Inc. defending against antitrust claims attacking the validity and licensing of patents included in Roche's polymerase chain reaction (PCR) patent portfolio.
- Tafas v. Dudas, Counsel for amici curiae Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) and Monsanto Company in support of Tafas in US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and on appeal to the Federal Circuit including for rehearing en banc. The briefs addressed the propriety under the patent laws, the APA, and the Constitution of final rules directed at continuation practice and promulgated by the US Patent and Trademark Office. For more information on the case, please click here.