Skip to main content

Amy DeWitt focuses her practice on patent litigation, with a concentration in damages and remedies. Amy has managed all aspects of litigation and has significant trial experience in U.S. District Courts. She also has an active pro bono practice. Most recently, she successfully opposed efforts by the United States Department of Homeland Security to deport a detainee to South Sudan.

Experience

  • Cytiva Sweden AB v. Bio-Rad Labs. Inc. Representing leading manufacturer of protein purification systems in patent infringement litigation.
  • Malvern Panalytical Inc. v. Waters Technologies Corp. Represented Waters in patent infringement litigation. After favorable claim construction ruling, secured stipulated judgment of non-infringement for certain patents, and case later settled for remaining patents.
  • bioMérieux v. Hologic and Grifols. Served as trial counsel to Hologic and Grifols in patent litigation involving HIV-1 screening. Successfully obtained a jury verdict of invalidity based on the defendants' own prior invention of the claimed technology.
  • Boston Scientific v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp. Represented Boston Scientific in a patent litigation matter involving transcatheter aortic valves. Obtained a US$35-million jury verdict while also obtaining a complete defense verdict on patent counterclaims. The parties later entered into a US$180-million global settlement.
  • Boston Scientific Corp. v. J&J/Wyeth/Cordis Corp. Defended Boston Scientific in a patent infringement action concerning drug-coated stents. The U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware invalidated all four patents-in-suit, 679 F. Supp. 2d 539, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, 504 F.App'x 922 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
  • Wyeth et al. v. Abbott Labs. et al. Defended Boston Scientific in a patent infringement action involving the use of antiproliferative drugs to treat restenosis. Each claim of the asserted patents was invalidated at summary judgment by the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, and affirmed on appeal. 702 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
  • Medtronic Vascular Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. Defended Boston Scientific in a patent infringement case concerning catheters used in coronary angioplasty. After a bench trial, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Hon. T. John Ward, held that the asserted patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 67819.
  • Provincial Government of Marinduque v. Placer Dome Inc. Defended Barrick Gold Corporation in an environmental case arising from tailings spill in the Philippines. The suit was ultimately dismissed by a Nevada court under the doctrine of forum non conveniens.
  • NovaGold v. Barrick Gold Corp. Represented Barrick in tender offer litigation. The U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska denied a motion for preliminary injunction under federal securities laws, clearing the way for a tender offer by Barrick, and dismissed claims for breach of fiduciary duty and breach of contract.

Credentials

Education

  • J.D., Wake Forest University School of Law, 2003
  • MBA, Binghampton University, 1995
  • B.S., Finance, Syracuse University, 1993, magna cum laude

Admissions

  • District of Columbia
Overview