professionalIMG

Thomas H. Wintner

Member vCard


Education

  • University of Virginia (JD)
  • Harvard University (MA, Bioorganic Chemistry, NSF Fellow)
  • University of Siegen (Fulbright Scholar)
  • Williams College (BA, Chemistry, summa cum laude)

Bar Admissions

  • Massachusetts
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
  • United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts
  • United States Supreme Court

Languages

  • French
  • German
  • Spanish

Tom focuses on complex litigation, at both the trial and appellate levels, for clients in a wide range of industries. He has successfully tried cases in both state and federal courts, and has guided others through mediation and arbitration. In his appellate practice, Tom has secured victories for clients in the First, Fourth, Ninth, and Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal as well as the Massachusetts Appeals Court.

In matters involving intellectual property, Tom draws on his prior experience as a research chemist. He represents life sciences companies in patent litigation and other intellectual property disputes, and has particular experience in matters involving pharmaceuticals, biotech, the Hatch-Waxman Act (for small molecule drugs), and the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (for large-molecule biologics).  Tom’s scientific expertise has also been brought to bear in several IPR proceedings, where he represents both patent owners and petitioners.

For education industry clients, Tom draws on his prior experience as a college dean. His clients include colleges and universities, and he represents them in matters as diverse as faculty and student affairs, regulatory compliance, internal investigations, and research misconduct proceedings.

Tom also has significant experience defending class actions in both federal and state courts.

Prior to joining the firm, Tom was a partner in the Boston office of another international law firm, where he was part of the litigation and IP litigation practices and co-chaired the firm’s educational institutions practice. Prior to that, he clerked for the Honorable Boyce F. Martin Jr. on the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Before attending law school, Tom served as Associate Dean of the Faculty at Williams College.

Representative Matters

Trial

  • Kowa Company, Ltd. et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC et al., No. 14-2758-PAC and related cases (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (pending): Hatch-Waxman action involving multiple Orange Book-listed patents for Livalo, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor.
  • Mitsubishi Chemical Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 718 F. Supp. 2d 382 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (Koeltl, J.), affirmed, No. 2010-1432, 2011 WL 3288394 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2011): Client’s patent covering high concentration formulation of anticoagulant (Argatroban Injection) held valid over anticipation and obviousness challenges; defendant’s ANDA approval enjoined.
  • Daley/Taylor v. Avellino, Nos. NACV2009-09/10 (Mass Super. Ct. May 9, 2011) (Cratsley, J.): Successfully obtained reversal of jury verdict on appeal, based on statute of limitations grounds.
  • Roquette Frères v. SPI Pharma, Inc., No. 06-540 (D. Del. Oct. 4, 2010) (Sleet, C.J.): Successfully defended patent infringement action involving pulverulent mannitol.
  • Massachusetts Housing Court (various).

Appellate

  • Phillips v. Equity Residential Management, L.L.C., No. 16-1254 (1st Cir.) (currently pending certification of specific questions to the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, Case No. SJC-12247): Putative class action appeal regarding interpretation of the MA Security Deposit Statute, G.L. c. 186, § 15B.
  • Heien et al. v. Archstone et al., 837 F.3d 97 (1st Cir. 2016): Obtained affirmance of district court’s substantial limitation on fee award to class counsel (6.8% of amount sought) in a class action settlement over fees paid by prospective tenants.
  • Daley/Taylor v. Avellino, No. 2012-P-0736 (Mass. App. Ct. April 18, 2013): Obtained complete reversal of judgment on jury verdict, based on statute of limitations grounds.
  • Rota-McLarty v. Santander Consumer USA Inc., 700 F.3d 690, (4th Cir. 2012): Obtained reversal of district court judgment denying motion to compel arbitration in a putative class action.
  • DeLia v. Verizon Communications Inc., 656 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2011): Obtained affirmance of district court summary judgment in favor of client on various employment law claims.
  • Mitsubishi Chemical Corp. v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., No. 2010-1432, 2011 WL 3288394 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 2, 2011): Obtained affirmance of district court judgment upholding client’s patent over anticipation and obviousness challenges.
  • Boston Telecommunications Group, Inc. v. Wood, 588 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2009): Obtained reversal of district court’s dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds, overcoming abuse of discretion review.
  • Simmons v. Galvin, 575 F.3d 24 (1st Cir. 2009): Application of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 to felon disenfranchisement laws. Appealed to US Supreme Court (No. 09-920) and referred to Solicitor General (May 3, 2010), but certiorari ultimately denied (Oct. 18, 2010).

Patent Office Proceedings

  • Green Cross Corp. v. Shire Human Genetic Therapies, Inc., IPR2016-00258, instituted May 25, 2016 (pending).
  • Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd., IPR2015-01069, Paper No. 24 (PTAB Oct. 20, 2015):  On behalf of pharmaceutical company patent owner, obtained decision denying institution of IPR.
  • Sawai USA, Inc.  et al. v. Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd., IPR2015-01647, Paper No. 9 (PTAB Feb. 4, 2016): On behalf of pharmaceutical company patent owner, obtained decision denying institution of IPR.
  • Sawai USA, Inc.  et al. v. Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd., IPR2015-01648, Paper No. 9 (PTAB Feb. 4, 2016): On behalf of pharmaceutical company patent owner, obtained decision denying institution of IPR.

Other Litigation 

  • Baker v. Equity Residential Management, No. MICV2013-03630 (Mass. Super. Ct.) (pending): Putative class action involving alleged heat and hot water violations pursuant to G.L. c. 186, § 14.
  • Perry et al. v. Equity Residential Management, No. 12-10779 (D. Mass.):  Successfully resolved seven class actions filed on behalf of tenants in MA challenging various fees collected in advance of move-in; won summary judgment on certain challenged fees.
  • Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. v. Mylan, Inc., No. 12-00024 (S.D.N.Y.): Hatch-Waxman action involving multiple Orange Book–listed patents covering  ActoplusMet XR, an extended-release combination product for treatment of type 2 diabetes.
  • Hy-Ko Products Company v. The Hillman Group, Inc., No. 08-1961 (N.D. Ohio): Patent infringement action involving key duplication technology.
  • Boston Telecommunications Group, Inc. v. Wood, No. 02-05971 (N.D. Cal.): Dispute over investment in cable television venture.
  • American Tower, Inc. v. Woodcrest Co., No. 2009-1309 (Ark. Cir. Ct., Pulaski County): Dispute over cell tower lease.

Professional & Community Involvement

  • Board of Trustees, Massachusetts Social Law Library
  • Board of Trustees, YMCA Camp Belknap, Wolfeboro, New Hampshire
  • Editor, Massachusetts Discovery Practice (MCLE, 3rd ed. 2017)
  • Member, American Chemical Society