Carolyn A. Blessing

Carolyn Blessing concentrates her practice in IP Pharmaceutical matters and Hatch-Waxman litigation. She represents pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in all aspects of federal intellectual property litigation, including pre-litigation activities, Paragraph IV Certifications, filing, fact and expert discovery, claim construction, motion practice, pre-trial, trial, post-trial and appellate phases.

Prior to joining Locke Lord, Carolyn acted as lead associate for a family of four complex patent litigations involving both patent infringement and Hatch-Waxman litigation, and undertook substantial responsibility for drafting and filing court documents, coordinating large teams of attorneys and liaising with the client, co-counsel, opposing counsel and vendors on an extensive array of issues. She also assisted with all aspects of patent prosecution and counseling for biotechnology companies.

Before attending law school, Carolyn gained practical experience working as a neurobiologist for a major pharmaceutical company. While there, she participated in the investigation of multiple sclerosis treatments that focused on promoting and enhancing remyelination. During her undergraduate studies, she conducted senior thesis research and authored a literature study on nuclear Actin Related Proteins (ARPs) and organized and led a project to characterize novel ARP proteins in yeast cells. Additionally, she interned in a pharmaceutical laboratory where she designed and conducted a study of the cross-resistance of test mammalian cancer cell lines to nucleoside based drugs.

Carolyn’s representative experience includes:

Ongoing matters

• Representing generic drug manufacturers in paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation concerning one patent related to a parenteral formulation for the reversal of neuromuscular blockade induced by rocuronium bromide and vecuronium bromide in adults undergoing surgery (Bridion®)
• Representing generic drug manufacturers in paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation concerning four patents related to an oral formulation used for the symptomatic management of stable heart-related chest pain and heart failure not fully managed by beta blockers (Corlanor®)
• Representing generic drug manufacturers in paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation concerning three patents related to an oral formulation for an atypical antipsychotic, which is used in the treatment of schizophrenia, bipolar mania and bipolar depression (Vraylar®)
• Representing generic drug manufacturers in paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation concerning six patents related to an oral formulation for the treatment of irritable bowle syndrome with diarrhea (IBS-D) (Viberzi®)
• Representing generic drug manufacturers in paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation concerning one patent related to oral formulations for the treatment of type 2 diabetes in adults (Januvia®, Janumet®, Janumet XR®)
• Representing generic drug manufacturers in paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation concerning 10 patents related to an oral formulation for the treatment of certain types of psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (Otezla®)
• Representing generic drug manufacturers in paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation concerning five patents related to an oral formulation for the treatment of depression (Trintellix®)

Completed matters

• Represented generic drug manufacturers in paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation concerning one patent related to an oral formulation for the treatment of multiple sclerosis (Gilenya®). Resolved matter through settlement
• Represented generic drug manufacturers in paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation concerning two patents relating to an oral formulation for the treatment of deep vein thrombosis (DVT) and pulmonary embolism (PE) (Eliquis®). Resolved matter through settlement
• Represented generic drug manufacturer in paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation concerning one patent relating to an oral formulation for the treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism (HPT) (Sensipar®). Resolved matter through settlement
• Represented generic drug manufacturer in paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation concerning four patents relating to an oral formulation for treating overactive bladder (OAB) (Myrbetriq®). Resolved matter through settlement
• Represented generic drug manufacturer in paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation concerning three patents relating to an oral formulation for treating COPD (Daliresp®). Resolved matter through settlement
• Represented generic drug manufacturer in paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation concerning two patents relating to a testosterone metered transdermal solution (Axiron®) and one patent relating to an applicator device, resulting in a district court verdict where all asserted formulation claims were found invalid and all asserted device claims were not infringed; on appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment in its entirety
• Represented generic drug manufacturer in paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation concerning three patents relating to extended-release capsules for treating certain types of seizures (Trokendi XR®). Resolved matter through settlement
• Represented generic drug manufacturer in paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation concerning injectable antibiotic IV infusion (Tygacil®). Resolved matter through settlement
• Represented generic drug manufacturer in paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation concerning oral formulations used to treat depression (Pristiq®). Resolved matter through settlement
• Represented generic drug manufacturer in paragraph IV Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation concerning oral formulations used to treat ulcerative colitis (Asacol HD®). Resolved matter through settlement
• At previous firm, represented a major pharmaceutical company in a Hatch-Waxman litigation concerning nine patents relating to one of their blockbuster brand-name drugs, resulting in a district court verdict where all asserted claims were found valid and enforceable and where defendants infringed all asserted claims