Ben Anger's practice is primarily focused on patent litigation, with deep experience in pharmaceutical and medical device litigation. Ben also has experience drafting and prosecuting patents in technologies such as medical devices, display technologies, microfluidic systems, software, e-commerce, optics, process engineering, biofuels, and mechanical systems.
Ben is a member of many pharmaceutical litigation teams at Knobbe Martens, whose Hatch-Waxman litigation practice is "highly recommended" by Managing IP magazine. He has practiced extensively in the area of pharmaceutical litigation, and is well versed in the Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) process and the complexities of litigation involving pharmaceuticals under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
Ben is very active in Knobbe Martens' Inter Partes Review practice. He has led team efforts in Inter Partes Review in the life sciences, chemistry, and medical devices industries.
Prior to joining the firm in 2009, Ben graduated from William & Mary Law School where he served in leadership positions in the school’s Intellectual Property Law Association. He also externed with the Honorable James E. Bradberry, Magistrate Judge, United States District Court, Eastern District of Virginia and served as the Contracts Teaching Assistant during his third year of law school.
Prior to law school, Ben worked for the multi-national consulting companies, Accenture and CGI, developing and implementing large-scale enterprise computer systems. Representative projects involved stream-lining the State of California purchasing workflow and helping to design the system architecture for the State of California Child Support computer system.
- Named a 2016-2018 "San Diego Rising Star" by Super Lawyers magazine for his work in intellectual property litigation.
- Named to the San Diego Business Journal (SDBJ) 2015 "Best of the Bar" list.
GDPR: Ready for the EU's New Data Privacy Law? What You Need to Know, Knobbe Martens Firm Alert (January 2018)
Is Your Organization Ready for the New EU Data Privacy Rules? In The House (January 2017)
Where Plaintiffs Are Filing Suit Post - TC Heartland, Law360 (July 7, 2017)
Knobbe Martens PTAB Blog
- Fintiv Is the New Nhk Springs: New Informative Decisions Sharpen the PTAB’s Focus on Discretionary Denials and Provide Guideposts for Parties (August 2020)
- PTAB’s New Informative Decisions Remind IPR Petitioners of Need for Well-Developed Rationale for Combining References (January 2020)
- Discretionary Denial as a Case Management Tool: PTAB Requires Petitioner to Rank its Six IPR Petitions by Merit and then Institutes on only Highest Ranked Petition (July 2019)
- PTO Explains that Old School Proceedings (Reissue/Reexam) Must Generally Yield to New School Proceedings (AIA Trials) for Claim Amendments (May 2019)
- Perhaps Assignor Estoppel Survives at the PTAB…via the District Court (Jan 2019)
- USPTO Provides New Guidance on Motions to Amend During IPR (Jun 2018)
- Massachusetts Court Finds Shaw Decision Forecloses Any Estoppel Beyond the Grounds That Were Instituted in an IPR, Despite Policy Reasons for Broader Estoppel (Apr 2018)
- Defendant Is Not Estopped from Relying on a Prior Art Reference in District Court that Is Related to a Reference Used in a CBM So Long as the Reference Includes New Disclosure (Apr 2018)
- PTAB Designates as Precedential the General Plastics Decision on Follow-On Petitions (Oct 2017)
- The Eastern District of Texas Again Broadly Applies IPR Estoppel and Finds a Joined Party in the IPR Is Also Subject to Estoppel (Oct 2017)
- PTAB Designates as "Informative" Expanded PTAB Panel Decision Adopting the Seven NVIDIA Factors For Evaluating Follow-On Petitions (Sep 2017)
- How to Lose an IPR but Amend Your Claims in Reexam and Keep Your Patent (Sep 2017)
- PTAB Grants Rare Supplemental Motion to Amend on Remand from Federal Circuit (Jul 2017)
- PTAB Grants-in-Part Rare Motion to Amend Based on Unexpected Results (Jun 2017)
- PTAB Not Barred from Using Patent Owner Submissions as a Basis for Holding Claims Unpatentable (May 2017)
- Magistrate Judge Recommends IPR Estoppel Bar of Prior Art References (May2017)
- PTAB: No Estoppel Because A Skilled Searcher Could Not Have Found Company Brochures (May 2017)
- PTAB Considers What Constitutes "By Another" Under § 102(e) in Determining Whether Challenged Claims are Unpatentable (Mar 2017)
- Federal Circuit Affirms PTAB's Holding of Obviousness in Google's IPR Against Michael Meiresonne (Mar 2017)
Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog
- Prior Art Regulatory Guidelines That Recite a Goal Without Teaching How That Goal Can Be Achieved Are of Limited Value as an Invalidating Prior Art Reference (May 2019)
- SAP AMERICA, INC. v. INVESTPIC LLC (May 2018)
- IN RE: BIGCOMMERCE, INC. (May 2018)
- TEXAS ADVANCED OPTOELECTRONIC (“TAO”) v. RENESAS ELECTRONICS AMERICA (“Intersil”) (May 2018)
- DISC DISEASE SOLUTIONS INC. v. VGH SOLUTIONS, INC. (May 2018)
- SUMITOMO DAINIPPON PHARMA CO. v. EMCURE PHARMACEUTICALS (April 2018)
- Hologic, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (Mar 2018)
- NALCO COMPANY v. CHEM-MOD, LLC (Feb 2018)
- THE MEDICINES COMPANY v. HOSPIRA, INC. (Feb 2018)