)
Karen Cassidy Selvaggio is a partner in our Orange County office. Her practice is focused on litigation with an emphasis on patents, trademarks, trade secrets, unfair competition claims, and data privacy claims.
Karen has represented clients in a variety of industries in district courts throughout the country and before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. She has extensive experience in the area of pharmaceutical litigation, particularly litigation involving Abbreviated New Drug Applications under the Hatch-Waxman Act. In addition to her work in the pharmaceutical industry, Karen has experience litigating cases relating to data privacy claims, including the defense of class actions in this area.
Karen is also active in firm management, serving on the firm’s Executive Committee and Litigation Committee.
Prior to joining the firm, Karen earned her law degree from the George Washington University Law School and a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Carroll College. Karen is also a registered patent attorney.
Education
The George Washington University Law School
(J.D., 2010)
Carroll College
(B.A. Chemistry, 2006)
Aptalis Pharmatech, Inc., Ivax International GMBH v. Apotex Inc., Apotex Corp. (Fed. Cir. 2018).
Represented Apotex in patent litigation involving Apotex’s generic version of Amrix, a product used to treat muscle spasms. On appeal, the Federal Circuit ruled in favor of Apotex. In its ruling, the Court determined the district court’s claim construction was erroneous, and that the proper construction required a continuous outer film surrounding the core containing the drug. The Court vacated the erroneous infringement finding and the injunction that prohibited FDA approval of Apotex’s product, and remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with the correct claim construction.
Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc., et al. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC et al., Case Nos. 13-cv-00391 and 15-cv-08229 (2016).
Represented the Ranbaxy defendants in a patent infringement action in the District of New Jersey on patents relating to sodium oxybate (the active ingredient in Jazz’s XYREM® product) and patents relating to the REMS system for the product. Achieved favorable case-dispositive settlement for client.
Harel v. KGM Industries Co., Inc., 12-cv-61669 (S.D. Fla. 2013).
Represented defendant, KGM, in a design patent infringement action in the Southern District of Florida on patents relating to the design of lighters. Case settled on favorable terms before trial.
Shire LLC and Supernus Pharms. Inc. v. Impax Laboratories, Inc., et al.,10-cv-0546 (N.D. Cal. 2013)
Represented defendant, Impax, in patent infringement action in the Northern District of California on patents relating to pharmaceutical compositions of guanfacine (active ingredient in Shire’s Intuniv® product). Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on one patent and achieved favorable settlement before trial.
Alcon Research, Ltd. et al. v. Wockhardt Ltd., et al., 10-cv-181 (S.D. Ind.2012).
Represented defendant Wockhardt, in a patent infringement action in the Southern District of Indiana on patent relating to olopatadine hydrochloride (active ingredient in Alcon’s Patanol® product). After moving for summary judgment of patent invalidity due to prior public use, succeeded in settling the case on favorable terms.
Henry Co. v. Sasol Wax N.A. et al., 11-cv-6444 (C.D. Cal. 2012).
Represented patentee, Henry Co., in patent infringement/unfair competition action in the Central District of California on a patent relating to water-resistant gypsum compositions and emulsions. Case settled on favorable terms after mediation before Hon. Charles A. Legge (Ret.).
Alza Corp. et al. v. Kremers Urban LLC, et al., 10-cv-23-LPS (D. Del. 2011).
Represented defendant, Kremers Urban, in patent infringement action in the District of Delaware on patents relating to methods of treating attention deficit disorder with methylphenidate hydrochloride (active ingredient in Alza’s Concerta® product. Case settled on favorable terms before trial.
Awards & Honors
- Recognized on Benchmark Litigation's "40 & Under List (West)" for IP - Appellate (2023 - 2024)
Articles
Karen Cassidy Selvaggio and Paul Stewart, "The Fed. Circ. In June: A Lesson On Citing With Particularity," Law360 (June 2023) (PDF)
Co-Author, "The Supreme Court Holds that Non-Public Sales May Trigger the "On-Sale" Bar Under the America Invents Act," Knobbe Martens Firm Alert
Author, Litigation Blog
- PTAB Need Not Consider Mountain of Evidence Submitted Without a Map
- Pannu Factors Help Hormel Bring Home the Bacon
- Unforced Error: An IPR Challenger Cannot Rely on an Error That a Posita Would Have Corrected
- The Heightened Standard of Proving Induced Infringement
- Intrinsic Evidence Trumps Plain and Ordinary Meaning
- No Standing for Second Bite at the Apple
- Twisting a Nose of Wax While Splitting Hairs
- Free Stream Gets Caught in the Section 101 Sandbox
- “Some” Enablement Isn’t Enough For PacBio
- Corresponding Structure Snafu: Lack of Algorithm Renders Claims Indefinite
- No Patent Eligibility Reward for Customer Loyalty Program Computer System
- When Can the PTO Extend a Patent’s Term Due to Delay From an Appeal?
- It’s a Date – Twitter Reply Proves Prior Art Publication Date
- An Old Method Using an Old Product From a New Source Is Not New
- Natural Law and Nothing More
- PTAB Must Evidence Decision Path During IPR Proceedings
- Improvements to Operation of an Apparatus Were Not Abstract
- The Definition of “Half-Liquid” Is Only Half Baked
- Preliminary Injunction Denied Because of Failure to Draft Precise Terms That Capture the Intent of the Parties
- PTAB Cannot Shortcut the Two-Step Obviousness Analysis
- Intrinsic Evidence Establishing the Context of a Claim Term Can Limit Claim Scope
- USPTO Guidance Cannot Modify or Supplant the Alice/Mayo Framework
- Ignoring Antecedent Basis in the Claim Results in Reversal of Patentability Determination
- An Inference That Compounds With Common Properties Share Other Related Properties Should Not Be Rejected as a Matter of Law at Summary Judgement
- Registration of a Multi-Color Mark Does Not Require Acquired Distinctiveness
- Secret Third-Party Processes May Not Trigger Pre-AIA § 102 Public Knowledge or Use Bars
- Pre-Complaint Damages for Willful Infringement Sunk by Failure to Comply With Marking Statute
- Non-Prior Art Evidence May Be Used to Prove Inherency
- Specification’s Narrow Description of the Invention Results in Disavowal of Claim Scope
- Publication Shelved in Publicly Accessible Library Was Accessible to the Public and Therefore Available as Prior Art
- A “Substantially Equivalent” Disclosure May Satisfy the Written Description Requirement
- The Doctrine of Equivalents May Apply Despite Restriction Requirements and Narrow Claiming
- VERSATOP SUPPORT SYSTEMS v. GEORGIA EXPO, INC.
- ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.
- GRUNENTHAL GMBH v. ALKEM LABORATORIES LIMITED
- CHARGEPOINT, INC. v. SEMACONNECT, INC.
- DR. FALK PHARMA GMBH v. GENERICO, LLC
- DUNCAN PARKING TECHNOLOGIES v. IPS GROUP, INC.
- SPINEOLOGY, INC., V. WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY INC.
- HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS, INC. v. F'REAL FOODS, LLC
- ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HTC AMERICA, INC.
- YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD. V. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. & TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. SANDOZ INC.
- HYATT v. PATO
- WORLDS INC. V. BUNGIE, INC.
- SAP AMERICA, INC. v. INVESTPIC, LLC
- IN RE MAATITA
- BLACKBIRD TECH LLC V. ELB ELECTRONICS, INC.
- POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., V. FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR
- Stone Basket Innovations, LLC v. Cook Medical, LLC
- D THREE ENTERPRISES, LLC v. SUNMODO CORPORATION
- MEDTRONIC, INC. v. BARRY
- WESTERNGECO LLC v. ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION
- KNOWLES ELECTRONICS LLC V. IANCU
- OTTAH V. FIAT CHRYSLER
- POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ARCTIC CAT, INC.
- XITRONIX CORPORATION v. KLA-TENCOR CORPORATION
- MERK SHARP & DOHME CORP. v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC
- ADVANCED VIDEO TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. HTC CORPORATION ET AL.
- ITC Issues Limited Exclusion Order of Diebold ATMs Following Finding of Patent Infringement
- Government Ordered to Pitch-In $12.5 Million to Resolve a Patent Dispute Involving Advanced Aerospace Technologies, Inc.’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Retrieval System Technology
- Jury Hits Hughes Network with $21 Million Verdict for Infringement of a Satellite Communications Technology Patent Belonging to an International Defense Company
Quoted Media, Articles