Jason W. Schigelone

As a veteran of the automotive industry, Jason Schigelone brings a client-side perspective to his practice. Jason is known for his thorough and detailed understanding of his clients’ technologies and businesses, and for his ability to translate this information into successful legal strategies and outcomes.

Jason focuses his practice on patent litigation and prosecution in the chemical, mechanical, medical, and pharmaceutical arts. He has experience in domestic and international patent prosecution and post-grant proceedings, including inter partes review proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and opposition proceedings before the European Patent Office. Jason has represented clients through all stages of litigation in the federal district courts and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He also has handled matters involving a variety of technologies, including interventional medical devices and health care products, pharmaceuticals, biosensors, climate control, and automotive systems.

Jason has worked in all aspects of the technology life cycle—as a manufacturing and materials engineer involved in product development, as an in-house patent engineer involved in IP development and valuation, and as an attorney involved in prosecuting and litigating patents. These experiences have given him a real-world perspective and appreciation of the issues that matter most to clients and help him achieve efficient and effective solutions.

Affiliations

Representative Matters

Cook (UK) Limited, Cook Medical Europe Limited, Cook Nederland B.V., Wilson-Cook Medical Inc., and Cook Ireland Limited v. Boston Scientific Limited, Boston Scientific Medical Device Limited, and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. (United Kingdom 2022 to present). Representing the Cook entities in a patent infringement action concerning hemostatic clips used to treat internal bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract. The case is ongoing.

Boston Scientific Medical Device Limited v. Cook Germany GmbH et al. (Germany 2022 to present). Representing the Cook entities in a patent infringement action concerning hemostatic clips used to treat internal bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract. The case is ongoing.

Boston Scientific Limited and Boston Scientific Medical Device Limited v. Cook Europe Finance B.V., Cook Nederland B.V., Cook Medical Nederland B.V., Cook (UK) Limited, Cook Ireland Limited, Cook Medical Europe Limited, Cook Medical EMEA Group Limited, Cook France SARL (Netherlands 2022). Represented the Cook entities in a preliminary injunction action filed by Boson Scientific concerning hemostatic clips used to treat internal bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract. The result at the conclusion of the proceedings was in Cook’s favor.

Vifor (International) AG, et al. v. Sandoz Inc., et al., No. 19-13955 (D.N.J. 2019–2021). Represented a client in a challenge to five Orange Book–listed patents for ferric carboxymaltose, which is marketed by American Regent as Injectafer.

H. Lundbeck et al. v. Apotex Inc. et al., No. 18-88 (D. Del. 2018–present). Represented a client in a challenge to crystal polymorph patents listed in the Orange Book in connection with vortioxetine hydrobromide, which Takeda markets as Trintellix.

Cook Group Incorporated and Cook Medical LLC v. Boston Scientific Scimed Inc. (PTAB 2016–2021). Represented the Cook entities in a series of IPR proceedings challenging four of Boston Scientific’s patents relating to hemostatic clips used to treat internal bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract. The net result at the conclusion of the proceedings, including appeals to the Federal Circuit, was in favor of the Cook entities. The asserted claims from three of the four patents were held unpatentable, leaving only a handful of claims from the fourth patent to litigate going forward.

Boston Scientific Corp. and Boston Scientific Scimed Inc. v. Cook Group Incorporated and Cook Medical LLC (D. Del. 2015–2017; S.D. Ind. 2017 to present). Representing the Cook entities in a patent infringement action filed by Boston Scientific concerning hemostatic clips used to treat internal bleeding in the gastrointestinal tract. The case is ongoing.

LifePort Sciences LLC and LifeScreen Sciences LLC v. Cook Incorporated and Cook Medical Incorporated (D. Del. 2013–present). Represented the Cook entities in several patent infringement actions concerning endovascular stent graft and vena cava filter technologies. The case settled on terms favorable to the Cook entities.

Endotach LLC v. Cook Medical Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2013–2018). Represented Cook Medical in a patent infringement action filed by Endotach involving two patents relating to endovascular stent        grafts for treating aneurysms. The district court granted summary judgment in Cook Medical’s favor on noninfringement grounds for one patent and invalidity grounds for the other patent. After several appeals to the Federal Circuit, the judgment was affirmed in Cook Medical’s favor.

Boston Scientific Corp., Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc., Boston Scientific Ltd., and Endovascular Technologies, Inc. v. Cook, Inc., Wilson-Cook Medical, Inc., Cook Medical Inc., Cook Ireland Ltd., Cook Group, Inc., Taewoong Medical Co., Ltd., Standard Sci-Tech Inc., EndoChoice, Inc., and Sewoon Medical Co., Ltd. (D. Mass. 2010–2017). Represented the Cook entities in a patent infringement action filed by Boston Scientific and others concerning esophageal stents for treating blockages, such as from cancer, in the esophagus. The case settled on terms favorable to the Cook entities.

Cook Incorporated v. Endologix, Inc. (S.D. Ind. 2009). Represented Cook Inc. in a patent infringement action concerning endovascular stent grafts for treating abdominal aortic aneurysms. The case settled on terms favorable to Cook.

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, IPR Pharmaceuticals, Inc., AstraZeneca AB, and The Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.(D. Del. 2010–2012). Represented Teva Pharmaceuticals USA in a second Hatch-Waxman action concerning the cholesterol-lowering drug Crestor and its active ingredient, rosuvastatin calcium. The district court granted Teva’s motion to dismiss the action. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal.

Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Schering Corp. v. Teva Parenteral Medicines, Inc., Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. (D. Del. 2009–2011). Represented Teva Parenteral Medicines, Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries in a Hatch-Waxman action concerning the anticoagulant drug Integrilin and its active ingredient, eptifibatide. The case settled on terms favorable to the Teva entities.

AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP, AstraZeneca UK Limited, IPR Pharmaceuticals Inc., and Shionogi Seiyaku Kabushiki Kaisha v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. (D. Del. 2008–2013). Represented Teva Pharmaceuticals USA in a Hatch-Waxman action concerning the cholesterol-lowering drug Crestor and its active ingredient, rosuvastatin calcium.

Edwards Lifesciences, LLC, and EndoGAD Pty, Ltd. v. Cook Incorporated, Medtronic, Inc., Medtronic AVE, Inc., and W.L. Gore & Associates, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2003–2010). Represented Cook in a patent infringement action filed by Edwards Lifesciences and EndoGAD concerning endovascular stent grafts for treating aneurysms. Cook won a summary judgment of noninfringement and the district court entered judgment in Cook’s favor. The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision.