Senior Associate
New York
Jordan litigates complex intellectual property disputes in the life sciences sector. He has experience with a broad spectrum of technologies, including small molecule pharmaceuticals, biologics, DNA sequencing, cellular immunotherapies, CRISPR gene editing, and medical devices. Jordan has represented clients in litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
Jordan has represented clients in an array of intellectual property disputes, including those involving patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and trademark infringement. He has also represented clients in disputes involving intellectual property licenses. Jordan has practiced in various federal district courts, as well as before the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the International Trade Commission, achieving successful outcomes for both plaintiffs and defendants at jury and bench trials alike.
In addition to his work in the life sciences sector, Jordan has substantial experience in the technology sector. He has litigated intellectual property disputes related to energy storage, OLED displays, base station antennas, fiber optics, and video game rendering. Jordan has also counseled clients on intellectual property licensing, patent prosecution and portfolio management, and intellectual property and information technology issues arising in commercial transactions.
Jordan maintains a robust pro bono practice and is currently involved in litigation concerning reproductive rights. He previously litigated claims of racial discrimination by police, which resulted in criminal justice reform within the police department. Jordan also helped exonerate a pro bono client, who had spent over 16 years in prison for a crime that he did not commit.
Tris Pharma, Inc. V. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc. Secured an important victory on behalf of Tris Pharma in the District of Delaware in ANDA litigation against Actavis Laboratories concerning Quillivant XR®, the first long-acting liquid treatment for ADHD. Following post-remand briefing, the district court ruled for Tris on both infringement and invalidity, finding the asserted claims infringed and not invalid. The Federal Circuit affirmed. This ruling will delay Actavis Laboratories from commercializing its generic version of Quillivant XR® until at least 2031.
Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. Secured an important victory on behalf of Tris Pharma in the District of New Jersey in ANDA litigation against Teva Pharmaceuticals concerning QuilliChew ER®, the first long-acting chewable treatment for ADHD and the first extended-release chewable tablet for any drug. Following a one-week bench trial and post-trial briefing, the district court ruled for Tris on both infringement and invalidity, finding the asserted claims infringed and not invalid. This ruling will delay Teva Pharmaceuticals from commercializing its generic version of QuilliChew ER® until at least 2033.
Pacific Biosciences of California, Inc. v. Oxford Nanopore Technologies, Inc. Successfully defended Oxford Nanopore in the District of Delaware against claims of patent infringement brought by Pacific Biosciences. The asserted claims concerned DNA sequencing using nanopore technology. Following a seven-day trial, the jury ruled for Oxford Nanopore on invalidity, finding all asserted claims invalid for lack of enablement. The Federal Circuit affirmed.