Scott K. Reed

Scott K. Reed

Partner, New York

Scott Reed is the Chairman of the Firm’s Litigation Practice Group.

Scott is known as a “consummate trial lawyer who discerns how to persuade the judge and jurors” and who produces “consistently excellent results” (IAM 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners, 2012). He is a “versatile operator with extensive first-chair experience” (IAM 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners, 2013) and brings “a lot of sage advice and experience” (Legal 500, 2012) as well as “his ‘enthusiasm’ to cases, leading a ‘professional’ team” (Legal 500, 2008).

Scott has served as lead trial counsel in complex patent litigations involving pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, chemicals and electronic and computer technologies.

Scott also presently serves on the Firm’s Management Committee.

Case Highlight
Bone Care Int'l v. Roxane Labs. et al.
D. Del. (2012)

Scott secured another victory upholding the validity of Genzyme’s patent to treat secondary hyperparathyroidism in patients on dialysis. Genzyme markets doxercalciferol for such use under the trade name Hectorol.
What Others Say
  • “Excellent patent litigator who becomes very knowledgeable of case details.” (LMG Life Sciences 2017)
  • “a versatile operator with extensive first-chair experience” (IAM 1000 The World’ s Leading Patent Practitioners 2013)
  • “brings a lot of sage advice and experience” (Legal 500 2012)
  • “brings his ‘ enthusiasm’ to cases, leading a ‘ professional’ team” (Legal 500 2008)
Representative Matters
  • Alkermes in Luye Pharma v. Alkermes (injectable suspensions including a long-acting injection of risperidone used to treat schizophrenia)
  • Allergan in Allergan v. Aurobindo, Wilshire and Sometset (opthalmic formulations of alcaftadine for once daily treatment of allergic conjunctivitis)
  • Astellas in Astellas v. Actavis, Sandoz, Sawai, Lupin, Zydus, Prinston, Aurobindo, Apotex and Windlas (compound to treat overactive bladder)
  • Bausch & Lomb in Bausch & Lomb v. Alcon and Bausch & Lomb v. Allergan (contact lens care products containing proteolytic enzymes and antimicrobial agents), Visx v. Bausch & Lomb (laser eye surgery), Allergan v. Bausch & Lomb (intraocular lenses), Allergan v. Bausch & Lomb (anti-glaucoma pharmaceuticals), Bausch & Lomb v. GNC, Bausch & Lomb v. Leiner, Bausch & Lomb v. Alcon, Bausch & Lomb v. Rexall, and Bausch & Lomb v. Vitamin Health (nutritional supplement to treat Macular Degeneration)
  • Bristol-Myers Squibb in Regents of the University of Michigan and Repligen Corporation v. Bristol-Myers Squibb (fusion protein regulation of the immune system), Housey Pharmaceuticals v. Bristol-Myers Squibb (cell based biotechnology assays), Zymogenetics v. Bristol-Myers Squibb (fusion proteins) and Regents of the University of Michigan and Repligen Corporation v. Bristol-Myers (rheumatoid arthritis pharmaceuticals)
  • Canon in Intellectual Ventures v. Canon (graphical user interface and image sensor technology), Honeywell v. Canon (autofocus camera technology) and Gross v. Canon (microprocessor technology and optical devices)
  • DuPont in Schneider v. DuPont and DuPont v. Cordis (polymeric balloon angioplasty materials)
  • Emory University in Emory University v. Glaxo Wellcome (anti-hepatitis pharmaceuticals) and Emory University v. Glaxo Wellcome and BioChem Pharma (anti-AIDS pharmaceuticals)
  • Genzyme in Bonecare and Genzyme v. Pentech, Eagle, Sandoz, Anchen, and Roxane (kidney disease pharmaceuticals); Bonecare and Genzyme v. Impax, Lupin, Endo, Teva, Watson, and Sandoz (kidney disease pharmaceuticals); Daiichi Sankyo and Genzyme v. Impax and Lupin (anti-cholesterol pharmaceuticals)
  • GlaxoSmithKline in GlaxoSmithKline v. Barr (prostate pharmaceuticals)
  • IBM in Berkeley v. IBM (personal computers); Valutron v. IBM (point of sale devices)
  • Merck in Merck v. Alcon (anti-glaucoma pharmaceuticals)
  • Mitsui in 3M v. Mitsui (adhesive technology)
  • Novartis in Novartis v. Abbott (organ transplant cyclosporin pharmaceuticals)
  • Pfizer in Pfizer v. Barr (estrogen contraceptive pharmaceuticals) and Pfizer v. Barr (hormone replacement therapy pharmaceuticals)
  • Pozen v. Par (migraine pharmaceuticals)
  • Quebec Metal Powders in Hoeganaes v. Quebec Metal Powders (powder metallurgy)
  • Regeneron in Regeneron v. Genentech (macular degeneration pharmaceuticals)
  • Sanofi-aventis in Genentech v. Sanofi and Regeneron (anti-cancer pharmaceuticals)
  • UCB in UCB v. Mylan, UCB v. Dr. Reddy’s, UCB v. Ivax, UCB v. Sandoz and UCB v. Cobalt (epilepsy pharmaceuticals); UCB v. KV, UCB v. Malinkropt and UCB v. Teva (attention deficit disorder pharmaceuticals)
  • Union Carbide in BP v. Union Carbide (polyethylene processing technology)
  • Valeant in Valeant v. Actavis (compound to treat irritable bowel syndrome with diarrhea)
Events / Publications
News & Press