John Nilsson represents technology clients in complex intellectual property litigation, both at the trial court and appellate level. Many of his cases have focused on medical devices and pharmaceuticals. He has also represented clients in cases involving electronics and telecommunications. Mr. Nilsson currently represents a leading international electronics manufacturer in multiple district court litigations and is lead counsel for another leading international electronics manufacturer in district court litigation in Delaware.

Experience

  • 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 asserted claim 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 the district court's grant of summary judgment. 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. Each claim of the asserted patents was invalidated at summary judgment. 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 plaintiff; Hologic obtained a successful ruling from the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on appeal reversing the district court's claim construction. Hologic, Inc. v. SenoRx, Inc., 639 F.3d 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2011).
  • Boston Scientific in patent infringement action involving drug-eluting stent technology. Each asserted claim of the four patents-in-suit 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 the lower court's entry of summary judgment. 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 convincing the Court that the asserted patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. Medtronic Vascular v. Boston Scientific Corp., 2:06-CV-78 (E.D. Tex. 2008).

Perspectives

Supreme Court To Review PTAB Policies And Practices
Arnold & Porter Advisory
The Impact of Recent Patent Law Cases and Developments (Chapter)

Inside the Minds, 2015 ed.

Supreme Court Deference to District Courts in Patent Cases

Corporate Counsel

Recognition

Best Lawyers
Litigation – Patent (2016-2018)
The Legal 500 US
Patent Litigation: Full Coverage (2017)

Credentials

Education
  • JD, Boston College Law School
  • MA, Harvard University
  • BA, Duke University, Phi Beta Kappa
Admissions
  • District of Columbia
  • Massachusetts
  • 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
Activities
  • 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.

Overview

Email Disclaimer