John Nilsson represents technology clients in complex intellectual property litigation, both at the trial court and appellate level. Although many of his cases have focused on medical devices and pharmaceuticals, he has also represented clients in disputes involving electronics, telecommunications, and other technologies. Mr. Nilsson currently is lead counsel for a leading international electronics manufacturer in a patent infringement action involving 4G cellular networking technology. He also represents one of the world's largest makers of orthopedic cement in multiple proceedings involving theft of its intellectual property, including a recent trade secrets trial before the International Trade Commission where Mr. Nilsson served as lead trial counsel.
- Boston Scientific as lead appellate counsel in an appeal by the Board of Regents of the University of Texas from an order transferring its patent infringement suit from Texas to Delaware. After the Board appealed the transfer on grounds of state sovereignty, Mr. Nilsson successfully argued that state sovereignty did not permit the Board to file its suit in an otherwise improper venue. Board of Regents of the University of Texas v. Boston Scientific Corp., 936 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2019).
- Boston Scientific as trial counsel in Jang v. Boston Scientific Corp., EDCV-05-426-VAP (C.D. Cal. 2015), a case in which the plaintiff claimed over $200 million in damages. At trial, won a jury verdict of no literal infringement. In a subsequent bench trial, Mr. Nilsson's team also defeated the plaintiff's claim of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, obtaining judgment on all claims in Boston Scientific's favor. Mr. Nilsson was counsel of record on appeal, where the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's finding of no infringement.
- GenSpera as lead counsel in Mhaka v. GenSpera, Inc., Nos. MJG-12-772, MJG-12-3302 (D. MD. 2014) in a case centered on the company's patented prodrug technology. Won summary judgment for GenSpera on all claims and counterclaims. Lead appellate counsel on the plaintiff's subsequent appeal to the Federal Circuit. One week after the appeal was argued, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court.
- Boston Scientific in a patent infringement action involving cardiovascular stent geometry patent claims. At summary judgment, each claim asserted against Mr. Nilsson's client was found not infringed. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 10-39 (D. Del. 2012). Mr. Nilsson was counsel of record in the appeal, where the Court of Appeals affirmed. Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., 504 Fed. Appx. 922 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
- Boston Scientific in a patent infringement action involving the use of antiproliferative drugs to treat restenosis.Mr. Nilsson's team successfully moved for summary judgment of invalidity. Wyeth et al. v. Abbott Labs. et al., 3:08-CV-00230 (D.N.J. 2011). Mr. Nilsson was also counsel of record on the appeal where the Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's grant of Summary judgment. Wyeth et al. v. Abbott Labs et al., 702 F.3d 1380 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
- Hologic as trial counsel and appellate counsel in a patent infringement action involving radioactive brachytherapy technology. After a trial verdict for the defendant, Mr. Nilsson was counsel of record on appeal where Hologic obtained a successful ruling reversing the district court's claim construction, after which the parties reached settlement. Hologic, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc., 639 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
- Boston Scientific in patent infringement action involving drug-eluting stent technology. Each claim of the patents asserted against Mr. Nilsson's client was invalidated at summary judgment. Boston Scientific Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 07-333-SLR (D. Del. 2010). Mr. Nilsson was also counsel of record on the appeal, where the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. Boston Scientific Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson, 647 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
- Boston Scientific in a patent infringement litigation involving coronary balloon catheter technology. At a bench trial, Boston Scientific succeeded in winning a verdict that the asserted patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Medtronic Vascular v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2:06-CV-78 (E.D. Tex. 2008).
- JD, Boston College Law School
- MA, Harvard University
- BA, Duke University, Phi Beta Kappa
- District of Columbia
- US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- US Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- US District Court, Eastern District of Texas
- US District Court, Western District of Texas
- Member, Giles S. Rich American Inn of Court
- Member, Federal Circuit Bar Association's Patent Litigation Committee, Federal Circuit Bar Journal Committee, and Hutchinson Writing Contest Committee