Amy DeWitt focuses her practice on intellectual property litigation, with a focus on damages and remedies. Amy’s practice includes leading the day-to-day litigation in high-stakes matters on all damages issues, and has obtained successful results throughout multiples stages of proceedings, including trial. Amy has significant trial experience in jury and bench trials in U.S. District Courts, including direct and cross-examination of fact and expert witnesses, and oral argument. Amy represents clients in matters involving a wide range of technologies, including medical devices, electronic and consumer products, telecommunications and networking, and solar panel systems.
Experience
- Nike v. lululemon. Served as trial counsel in asserting multiple patents related to footwear technology. Secured favorable jury verdict.
- GeigTech v. Lutron. Served as trial counsel in defending against patent infringement and trade dress-related claims. Secured favorable verdict resulting in dismissal of trade secret claims, and secured new trial on damages for the patent infringement claim.
- Cytiva Sweden AB v. Bio-Rad Labs. Inc. Represented 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
- M.B.A., SUNY at Binghamton, 1995
- B.S., Finance, Syracuse University, 1993, magna cum laude
Admissions
- District of Columbia