Edward Pardon, M.D., wants to help his clients get their products on the market as quickly and cost-effectively as possible. Combining his science and medical background with skillful writing, he takes the complex concepts of his clients' cases and reduces them to simple, understandable ideas that judges can understand and apply the law to.
Dr. Pardon represents businesses and individuals in a range of scientific and technical areas. He focuses his practice particularly in representing generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in Hatch-Waxman litigation, as well as in other patent litigation and in cases involving a range of scientific and technical issues. Dr. Pardon also counsels clients in regulatory issues related to the Hatch-Waxman Act and in providing infringement and validity analyses for pharmaceutical patents. He also has substantial experience in general litigation and in physician licensing matters.
Before graduating from law school, Dr. Pardon practiced medicine for ten years. His experience conducting basic and clinical research and in medical administration has given him a strong foundation in both the science required for patent litigation and the understanding of how businesses function from a practical perspective.
Novartis Pharm. Corp. v. Pharmaceutics Int’l, Inc., et al., No. 13-cv-1028 (D.N.J. 2013). Representing generic manufacturer in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving methods of treatment for zoledronic acid injection.
Cadence Pharmaceuticals, et al. v. Paddock Labs. LLC, et al., No. 11- cv-733 (D. Del.). Represented Perrigo Company and Paddock Laboratories in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving acetaminophen for injection.
Glaxosmithkline PLC, et al. v. Hikma Pharm. Co., et al., No. 12-cv-1965 (D.N.J.). Hatch-Waxman litigation involving argatroban for injection.
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals, L.P. v. Aurobindo Pharma Ltd., No. 2011-1183 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 9, 2012); No. 10-339 (D. Del.). Represented generic pharmaceutical manufacturer in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving method-of-use patents for rosuvastatin, establishing generic applicants’ ability to successfully “carve out” method of use indications where indicated.
Sanofi-Aventis et al. v. Aurolife Pharma LLC, et. al., No. 10-cv-5801 (D.N.J.). Represented generic manufacturer in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving fexofenadine.
Riezler, et. al. v. Allen, et. al., No. 2009-1528 (Fed. Cir.); No. 08-cv-332 (D. Col.) Represented plaintiff in inventorship dispute involving multivitamin combination and treatment methods.
In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation, No. 2010-1460 (Fed. Cir); MDL No. 08-1949 (D. Del.). Hatch-Waxman litigation involving rosuvastatin.
Abbott Laboratories, et al. v. Watson Laboratories, Inc., No. 10-57 (D. Del.). Hatch-Waxman litigation involving niacin/simvastatin combination.
Anchor Packaging, Inc. v. Placon Corp., 08-cv-50028 (N.D. Ill.). Patent infringement action involving food packaging technology.
Z Trim Holdings, Inc. et. al. v. Fiberstar, Inc., No. 07-cv-161 (W.D. Wis.). Patent infringement action involving fiber replacement ingredient.
Wisconsin Alumni Res. Found. v. Siemens AG, No. 11-cv-785 (W.D. Wis.). Local counsel practice for patent infringement action involving MRI methods.
Cheese Sys. Inc. v. Tetra Pak Chees and Powder Sys., Inc., No. 11-cv-21 (W.D. Wis.). Local counsel practice for patent infringement action involving cheese processing technology.
Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, Inc., No. 06-cv-611 (W.D. Wis.) Local counsel practice for patent infringement action involving graphics technology.
Forest Laboratories, Inc., et. al., v. Ivax Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et. al., (No. 03-891, D. Del.). Hatch- Waxman litigation involving escitalopram.
Eli Lilly & Co., et. al, v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, et. al., 364 F. Supp. 2d 820 (S.D. Ind. 2005). Hatch-Waxman litigation involving olanzapine.
Kingsley v. Hendrickson, et al., No. 10-cv-832 (W.D. Wis.). Pro bono trial involving civil rights claim for excessive force.
EP Direct, Inc. v. Virginia Fellman, et. al., No. 06-AP-2829 (Wis. Ct. App., Nov. 21, 2007). Contract dispute.
STEP Now v. Algoma Ethanol LLC, et al., 2003 WI App 109, 663 N.W.2d 833 (2003). Appeal involving zoning and related issues concerning site of ethanol plant.
Ochs v. HMSA, No. 01-1-459 (Haw. Cir. Ct.). State antitrust and unfair trade claims involving dental practice.
State ex. rel Ford v. Holm, 2006 WI App 176; State v. Marioneaux, No. 02-1791 (Wis. App. Jan 29, 2004). Habeas proceedings involving constitutional claims of right to appellate counsel.
Law clerk for the Honorable Ronald T.Y. Moon, Chief Justice (Ret.) of the Supreme Court of Hawaii.
Adjunct Instructor, University of Wisconsin Law School