Edward Han has worked on a variety of complex commercial litigation matters, including intellectual property cases, securities litigation, contractual disputes, and antitrust cases. Those cases have involved diverse industries, such as medical devices, telecommunications, and precious metals.

Prior to completing his legal education, Mr. Han worked for several years in econometric forecasting and consulting, including forensic economic analysis.

Experience

  • Jang v. Boston Scientific. Defended Boston Scientific in two-week trial in US District Court for the Central District of California, and secured jury verdict that Boston Scientific's coronary stent did not literally infringe the patent. After a subsequent bench trial, the court ruled in Boston Scientific's favor on plaintiff's claim of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents and entered judgment for Boston Scientific. 2015 WL 5822585. Affirmed. 2017 WL 4321270 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 29, 2017).
  • 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 US 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.
  • Boston Scientific v. Johnson & Johnson; Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific; Wyeth v. Abbott. Defended Boston Scientific in a series of patent infringement suits concerning drug coatings for coronary stents and stent designs. The US District Court for the District of Delaware, Hon. Sue L. Robinson, granted summary judgment that the asserted drug patents were invalid for lack of written description and non-enablement. 679 F. Supp. 2d 539; affirmed 647 F.3d 1353. Judge Robinson granted summary judgment that Boston Scientific did not infringe the stent design patents. 868 F. Supp. 2d 342; affirmed 504 Fed. Appx. 922. The US District Court for the District of New Jersey granted summary judgment that other drug patents were invalid. Affirmed 504 Fed. Appx. 922.
  • Cook Inc. v. Boston Scientific Corp. Represented Boston Scientific in a patent licensing dispute concerning coronary stents. The US District Court for the Northern District of Illinois granted Boston Scientific's motion for summary judgment and entered a permanent injunction barring a competitor from exploiting the licensed technology. 208 F. Supp. 2d 874; 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 11323. Affirmed by the Seventh Circuit. 333 F.3d 737.
  • Boston Scientific Corp. v. Medtronic AVE, Inc. Represented Boston Scientific in a patent dispute concerning catheters used in coronary angioplasty. An arbitration panel awarded Boston Scientific US$175 million in damages and a permanent injunction barring a competitor's manufacture and sale of infringing products.
  • Alt v Boston Scientific Corp. Defended Boston Scientific against a claim for royalties under a patent license. After an arbitration hearing, the panel ruled that Boston Scientific did not practice the licensed technology and, therefore, owed the claimant no royalties.
  • Freedom Wireless, Inc. v. Boston Communications Group, Inc. Represented Rogers Wireless, a Canadian telecommunications provider, in a patent case concerning prepaid wireless services. The US District Court for the District of Massachusetts granted Rogers' motion for summary judgment, concluding that Rogers did not use the allegedly infringing system within the United States and was not subject to personal jurisdiction in the United States. 198 F. Supp. 2d 11. 218 F. Supp. 2d 19.

Recognition

The Legal 500 US
Patent Litigation: Full Coverage (2013)

Credentials

Education
  • JD, Georgetown University Law Center, 1985, cum laude
  • BA, Johns Hopkins University, 1979, cum laude
Admissions
  • District of Columbia
  • New York
  • US District Court, District of Columbia
  • US District Court, Southern District of New York
Overview

Email Disclaimer