Skip to main content

Joseph D. Rutkowski

(he/him/his)

Special Counsel

[email protected]

+1.617.348.1873

Share:

Joseph’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and counseling on issues related to intellectual property rights. Joseph’s primary focus is in patent litigation, including the intricacies of Hatch-Waxman pharmaceutical litigation. He has extensive experience in every stage of litigation, from pre-suit investigations through appeal – including case initiation, fact and expert discovery, motion practice, and successful preparation for and participation in trials involving patent infringement allegations.

Joseph has represented clients across a wide range of technologies including pharmaceuticals, medical and mechanical devices, consumer products, and telecommunications services. He has also worked on numerous high-stakes Hatch-Waxman litigations for major pharmaceutical companies through trial and appeals. Beyond patent litigation, Joseph has experience in disputes involving unfair competition, breach of contract, trademarks and trade secret misappropriation, and educational institutions.

In addition to his intellectual property and complex commercial litigation experience, Joseph served, pro bono, as lead counsel for a homeless shelter in numerous housing court matters, including summary process jury trial, alternative dispute resolution, contract negotiations, and strategic assessments.

Prior to joining Mintz, Joseph was an associate in the Boston litigation practice of another international law firm. During law school, Joseph was an editor on the Boston University Law Review. Before beginning his legal career, he was a business and systems integration consultant, working with Fortune 500 financial services and technology clients to design and implement enterprise-wide IT systems across US markets.

Education

  • Boston University School of Law (JD, magna cum laude)
  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (BS, Information Technology: Management Information Systems, summa cum laude)

Experience

  • Kowa Pharmaceuticals America et al v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 1:14-cv-2760 (S.D. NY) - Represented plaintiffs Kowa Company, Ltd., Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. and Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd. in litigation which involved compound, formulation, and polymorph patents directed toward quinoline-type mevalonolactones (or, pitavastatin calcium) relating to the drug product Livalo®. Several of the cases successfully resolved pre-trial, and after a 10-day trial plaintiffs prevailed on all issues in two court decisions against the remaining defendants, Amneal and Apotex. Mintz represents Kowa and Nissan in the appeal filed by Amneal and Apotex in the Federal Circuit. The team also defeated institution of three inter partes reviews filed by generic manufacturer defendants in these cases.
  • Member of a trial team that represents major international pharmaceutical companies and has successfully litigated cases at both the district court and appellate level in ANDA patent infringement actions under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Representative civil actions including: Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited et al v. Mylan, Inc. et al, (S.D.N.Y. 12-cv-00024).
  • Inline Plastics Corp. v. EasyPak, LLC, Appeal No. 14-1305 (Fed. Cir.) - Represented Inline Plastics while obtaining dismissal of invalidity counterclaims and entry of judgment on infringement to expedite appeal and reversal and remand of case-dispositive claim construction. Inline achieved highly-favorable settlement on remand.
  • MeadWestvaco v. Rexam, Appeal No. 12-1518 (Fed. Cir.) - Represented plaintiff-appellee before the Federal Circuit following a bench trial awarding the company with permanent injunctions against two direct competitors. While considering numerous challenges to infringement and validity from both defendant-appellants in a consolidated appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed, inter alia, the district court’s decisions on infringement and did not disturb injunctions awarded to our client.
  • Dallakian v. IPG Photonics, No. 14-cv-11863 (D. Mass.) - Represented IPG Photonics while successfully defending against claims for correction of inventorship and trade secret misappropriation. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint after defendant secured expedited discovery and an early summary judgment motion.

Recognition & Awards

  • Dean’s Award for Environmental Law, Boston University School of Law

Involvement

  • Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Member, Boston Bar Association
  • Member, Boston Patent Law Association
  • Member, Massachusetts Bar Association

Recent Insights

News & Press

Events

Viewpoints

Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Federal Circuit Affirms Dismissal of Hatch-Waxman Defendants for Lack of Venue and Failure to State a Claim

November 12, 2021 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo, Joe Rutkowski

On November 5, 2021, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., Case No. 21-1154, affirmed a decision from the District Court of New Jersey dismissing a suit brought by Celgene Corporation (“Celgene”) under Rule 12(b)(6) for improper venue as to defendants Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“MPI”) and Mylan Inc. and for the failure to state a claim against defendant Mylan N.V. Celgene had brought suit after MPI submitted an ANDA seeking approval to market a generic version of the drug Pomalyst used to treat multiple myeloma. In assessing venue, the court held that it was MPI’s ANDA submission to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”), and not the sending of a notice letter to Celgene in New Jersey, that was the artificial act of infringement pursuant to the Hatch-Waxman Act. The district court thus held, and the Federal Circuit affirmed, that venue in New Jersey was improper.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Federal Circuit Clarifies that Willful Infringement Does Not Require Egregious Conduct

October 26, 2021 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo, Joe Rutkowski

On September 28, 2021, in a precedential opinion, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in SRI Int’l, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Nos. 2020-1685, -1704, clarified its decision from a prior appeal in the same case to hold that a finding of willful infringement requires only deliberate or intentional infringement, not egregious, wanton, malicious, or bad-faith infringement conduct.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
In what appears to be a case of first impression, on August 23, 2021 U.S. District Judge John Z. Lee of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois denied a biosimilar applicant’s motion to dismiss a patent infringement suit brought under the Biosimilar Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) against a foreign parent corporation that did not file or sign the relevant abbreviated Biologics License Application (“aBLA”).
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

PTAB statistics show interesting trends for Orange Book and biologic patents in AIA proceedings

August 24, 2021 | Blog | By Peter Cuomo, Joe Rutkowski, Nana Liu

The PTAB recently published the first update to its 2019 study of AIA trials involving petitions challenging Orange Book-listed patents and biologic patents through June 2021. Highlights of these pharmaceutical patent challenge statistics include, e.g., the number of these petitions filed, the number of instituted trials, and the trial outcomes since fiscal year 2013.
Read more
Patent Litigation Viewpoint Thumbnail
On March 24, 2021, U.S. District Judge Colm F. Connolly of the District of Delaware, granted a defendant’s motion to dismiss claims for contributory and induced infringement and enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 because the complaint alleged knowledge of the asserted patents solely based on averments in prior original and amended complaints in the same lawsuit.
Read more
Patent Litigation Viewpoint Thumbnail
Recently in Nike, Inc. v. Skechers U.S.A., Inc., 2:17-cv-08509 (C.D. Cal.) (October 26, 2020), the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California granted-in-part and denied-in-part Defendant, Skechers U.S.A., Inc.’s (“Skechers”), motion to limit Plaintiff, Nike, Inc.’s (“Nike”), claim seeking attorney’s fees related to the infringement of its eight asserted design patents, resulting in the bifurcation of the willfulness issue from the trial on the merits.
Read more
Federal Circuit Appeals Viewpoint Thumbnail

In Hatch-Waxman litigation, Federal Circuit restricts venue under the TC Heartland to districts relating to ANDA filings

November 12, 2020 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo, Joe Rutkowski, Nana Liu

On November 5, 2020, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Valeant Pharmaceuticals N. Am. LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 19-2402, resolved a split among district courts over what constitutes “acts of infringement” sufficient to support venue in the context of a Hatch-Waxman litigation.  
Read more
Patent Litigation Viewpoint Thumbnail
On July 30, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in APS Technology, Inc. v. Vertex Downhole, Inc. et al, No. 19-cv-01166, denied Vertex Downhole’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss APS’s patent infringement complaint.
Read more
Patent Litigation Viewpoint Thumbnail
On July 13, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, in Mich. Motor Techs., v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, No. 19-10485, granted Volkswagen’s motion to dismiss Michigan Motor Technologies’ (MMT’s) willful infringement claims and request for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 because MMT failed to allege sufficient facts to plausibly establish that Volkswagen acted egregiously and with knowledge of both the asserted patents and Volkswagen’s infringement thereof.
Read more
Patent Litigation Viewpoint Thumbnail
On June 26, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in VLSI Tech. LLC. v. Intel Corp, No. 18-0966-CFC, denied VLSI’s motion for leave to amend to add claims for willful infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,212,633 (the “’633 patent”) and 7,523,331 (“the ’331 Patent”) based on pre-suit activity but granted it as to alleged post-suit infringement (which Intel did not oppose).
Read more

News & Press

News Thumbnail
Mintz Members Peter Cuomo and Adam Samansky and Associate Joseph Rutkowski were quoted in an article published by Law360 on the potential implications of the Federal Circuit’s recent ruling in Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., which cemented a prior decision in Valeant v. Mylan holding that patent suits against generic drugmakers must be filed where the company is incorporated or where it performed actions related to its Abbreviated New Drug Application.
News Thumbnail
Law360 covered developments in a trade secret lawsuit involving X-ray tubes brought on by Mintz client Philips Medical Systems, Inc. against Chinese companies Kunshan GuoLi Electronic Technology Co. Ltd. and its subsidiary, Kunshan Yiyuan Medical Technology Co. Ltd.
Mintz has secured a string of substantial victories in Hatch-Waxman litigation for innovative drug manufacturers Kowa Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., and Nissan Chemical Industries Ltd.

Events

Speaker