1. Home
  2. People
  3. Drake, Lauren

Lauren Drake

Partner

Los Angeles

Lauren is an intellectual property partner in Orrick’s Los Angeles office. With a background in biochemistry and molecular biology, Lauren handles complex patent litigation and patent post-grant proceedings.

Lauren has represented clients in connection with a broad spectrum of technologies, ranging from central nervous system stimulants to immunotherapies and monoclonal antibody medications to anti-angiogenesis drugs in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industries.

She was recognized by Law360’s Rising Stars as “one of the top intellectual property attorneys under the age of 40” in 2019. Lauren was also named to Benchmark Litigation’s "40 and Under Hot List," which honors the achievements of the nation’s most accomplished litigators under 40.

    • Tris Pharma, Inc. V. Actavis Laboratories FL Inc. and Teva Pharmaceuticals USA – Maintained exclusivity until patent expiration for Tris Pharma’s two highest grossing drugs. Secured an important victory on behalf of Tris Pharma, Inc. in the District of Delaware in a lawsuit against Actavis on patents that cover Tris's Quillivant XR® product. The district court found Actavis directly and indirectly infringed all asserted claims and that all asserted claims are not invalid. This ruling will prevent Actavis from commercializing its generic version of Quillivant XR® at least until 2031, when the infringed patents expire. In the District of New Jersey, secured an important victory following a bench trial against Teva on patents that protect Tris’s QuilliChew ER® product. This victory will prevent Teva from commercializing its generic version of QuilliChew ER® until at least 2033, when the infringed patents expire. 
    • Peter v. NantKwest/NantKwest v. Lee. Represented NantKwest before the district court, Federal Circuit, and Supreme Court in a 35 U.S.C. § 145 action relating to natural killer cell based therapies for cancer and the Patent and Trademark Office's ability to recover attorneys' fees under § 145. Ultimately, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with NantKwest, and struck down the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office's policy that applicants who appeal to a district court must foot the agency's attorneys' fees.
    • Genentech and Biogen v. Celltrion and Teva; Genentech and Biogen v. Sandoz. Representing Genentech and Biogen in patent disputes with multiple companies seeking to market a biosimilar of the blockbuster drug Rituxan® under the BPCIA. In addition to pursuing district court litigations, we defended Genentech and Biogen against 25 IPR petitions at the PTAB and secured 16 non-institution decisions, 4 adverse judgments against petitioners (who abandoned the proceeding), and 3 final written decisions rejecting the attack on all claims. The IPR victories resulted in all companies deferring market entry until expiration of Genentech and Biogen's patents on the core indications for Rituxan®, including one settlement just before the start of a four-day preliminary injunction trial. We continue to represent Genentech and Biogen with respect to potential new market entrants for biosimilars of Rituxan®.
    • PDL BioPharma v. Merck. Secured a $19.5 million lump sum payment from Merck to settle PDL BioPharma's lawsuit filed in the US District Court for the District of New Jersey alleging that Merck's manufacture of its cancer drug Keytruda infringed a foundational patent relating to the humanization of recombinant antibodies. The case settled little more than one year after it was filed, following the claim construction hearing.
    • Ariosa Diagnostics v. Sequenom. Represented Ariosa in patent litigation against Sequenom. Ariosa brought an early summary judgment motion, and the court invalidated Sequenom's patent because it attempted to cover a natural phenomenon, which is not patent-eligible. The decision gave Ariosa a complete victory and was affirmed by the Federal Circuit in a precedential opinion.
    • PDL BioPharma v. Genentech (arbitration). Represented PDL BioPharma, which pioneered technology relating to humanization of recombinant antibodies, in a complex breach of contract matter. The matter settled on terms favorable to PDL.
    • Regeneron Pharmaceuticals v. Genentech. Represented Regeneron Pharmaceuticals in connection with a patent case in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to Regeneron's Eylea and Zaltrap anti-angiogenesis drugs.