Skip to main content

Joseph D. Rutkowski

Associate

JDRutkowski@mintz.com

+1.617.348.1873

Share:

Joseph’s practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and counseling on issues related to intellectual property rights. Joseph’s primary focus is in patent litigation, including the intricacies of Hatch-Waxman pharmaceutical litigation. He has extensive experience in every stage of litigation, from pre-suit investigations through appeal – including case initiation, fact and expert discovery, motion practice, and successful preparation for and participation in trials involving patent infringement allegations.

Joseph has represented clients across a wide range of technologies including pharmaceuticals, medical and mechanical devices, consumer products, and telecommunications services. He has also worked on numerous high-stakes Hatch-Waxman litigations for major pharmaceutical companies through trial and appeals. Beyond patent litigation, Joseph has experience in disputes involving unfair competition, breach of contract, trademarks and trade secret misappropriation, and educational institutions.

In addition to his intellectual property and complex commercial litigation experience, Joseph served, pro bono, as lead counsel for a homeless shelter in numerous housing court matters, including summary process jury trial, alternative dispute resolution, contract negotiations, and strategic assessments.

Prior to joining Mintz, Joseph was an associate in the Boston litigation practice of another international law firm. During law school, Joseph was an editor on the Boston University Law Review. Before beginning his legal career, he was a business and systems integration consultant, working with Fortune 500 financial services and technology clients to design and implement enterprise-wide IT systems across US markets.

Education

  • Boston University School of Law (JD, magna cum laude)
  • Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (BS, Information Technology: Management Information Systems, summa cum laude)

Experience

  • Kowa Pharmaceuticals America et al v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, 1:14-cv-2760 (S.D. NY) - Represented plaintiffs Kowa Company, Ltd., Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc. and Nissan Chemical Industries, Ltd. in litigation which involved compound, formulation, and polymorph patents directed toward quinoline-type mevalonolactones (or, pitavastatin calcium) relating to the drug product Livalo®. Several of the cases successfully resolved pre-trial, and after a 10-day trial plaintiffs prevailed on all issues in two court decisions against the remaining defendants, Amneal and Apotex. Mintz Levin represents Kowa and Nissan in the appeal filed by Amneal and Apotex in the Federal Circuit. The team also defeated institution of three inter partes reviews filed by generic manufacturer defendants in these cases.
  • Member of a trial team that represents major international pharmaceutical companies and has successfully litigated cases at both the district court and appellate level in ANDA patent infringement actions under the Hatch-Waxman Act. Representative civil actions including: Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited et al v. Mylan, Inc. et al, (S.D.N.Y. 12-cv-00024).
  • Inline Plastics Corp. v. EasyPak, LLC, Appeal No. 14-1305 (Fed. Cir.) - Represented Inline Plastics while obtaining dismissal of invalidity counterclaims and entry of judgment on infringement to expedite appeal and reversal and remand of case-dispositive claim construction. Inline achieved highly-favorable settlement on remand.
  • MeadWestvaco v. Rexam, Appeal No. 12-1518 (Fed. Cir.) - Represented plaintiff-appellee before the Federal Circuit following a bench trial awarding the company with permanent injunctions against two direct competitors. While considering numerous challenges to infringement and validity from both defendant-appellants in a consolidated appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed, inter alia, the district court’s decisions on infringement and did not disturb injunctions awarded to our client.
  • Dallakian v. IPG Photonics, No. 14-cv-11863 (D. Mass.) - Represented IPG Photonics while successfully defending against claims for correction of inventorship and trade secret misappropriation. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the complaint after defendant secured expedited discovery and an early summary judgment motion.

Recognition & Awards

  • Dean’s Award for Environmental Law, Boston University School of Law

Involvement

  • Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Member, Boston Bar Association
  • Member, Boston Patent Law Association
  • Member, Massachusetts Bar Association

Recent Insights

News & Press

Events

Viewpoints

Patent Litigation Viewpoint Thumbnail
On July 30, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in APS Technology, Inc. v. Vertex Downhole, Inc. et al, No. 19-cv-01166, denied Vertex Downhole’s Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss APS’s patent infringement complaint.
Read more
Patent Litigation Viewpoint Thumbnail
On July 13, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, in Mich. Motor Techs., v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft, No. 19-10485, granted Volkswagen’s motion to dismiss Michigan Motor Technologies’ (MMT’s) willful infringement claims and request for enhanced damages under 35 U.S.C. § 284 because MMT failed to allege sufficient facts to plausibly establish that Volkswagen acted egregiously and with knowledge of both the asserted patents and Volkswagen’s infringement thereof.
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail
On June 26, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, in VLSI Tech. LLC. v. Intel Corp, No. 18-0966-CFC, denied VLSI’s motion for leave to amend to add claims for willful infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 6,212,633 (the “’633 patent”) and 7,523,331 (“the ’331 Patent”) based on pre-suit activity but granted it as to alleged post-suit infringement (which Intel did not oppose).
Read more
Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

Celgene v. Sun Pharma Global: Satisfying Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under § 271(e)(2)

April 13, 2020 | Blog | By Adam Samansky, Peter Cuomo, Joe Rutkowski

On April 6, 2020, the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Celgene Corp. v. Sun Pharma Global FZE, No. 19-cv-10099, denied Sun’s motion to dismiss Celgene’s claims that Sun’s generic Revlimid® (lenalidomide) Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) product infringes three patents not listed in the Orange Book for Revlimid® and for which Sun did not make any Paragraph IV certifications.
Read more
Viewpoint-Landing Intellectual Property Mintz

Year in Review: The Most Popular IP Posts of 2019

January 6, 2020 | Blog | By Christina Sperry

As 2020 begins and intellectual property (IP) strategies are being developed for the new year, it is a good time to reflect on what IP issues were prominent in 2019.  According to many readers, hot topics included § 112 written description, prosecution history estoppel, and venue in the wake of TC Heartland.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
On December 18, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in Fox Factory v. SRAM, Nos. 2018-2024 and 2018-2025, reversed the Board’s Final Written Decision in a pair of inter partes reviews (“IPRs”) that the challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 9,182,027 (“the ’027 patent”) were not invalid as obvious, and remanded for further proceedings.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
In a precedential opinion on October 4, 2019, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in OSI Pharmaceuticals v. Apotex, No. 2018-1925, reversed the Board’s Final Written Decision in an inter partes review (“IPR”) finding that claims of United States Patent No. 6,900,221 (the “‘221 patent”) were invalid as obvious.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
On August 13, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, in Valeant Pharmaceuticals N. Am. LLC v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 18-cv-14305, held that venue was not proper in New Jersey over Mylan in a patent infringement action arising from Mylan’s submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking approval to market a generic version of the drug, Jublia®.
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
On June 17, 2019, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Accord Healthcare Inc., et al., No. 18-cv-01043, held that venue was not proper in Delaware over Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (“MPI”) in connection with Novartis’s Hatch-Waxman patent infringement claim arising from MPI’s submission of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (“ANDA”) seeking approval to market a generic version of the drug, Gilenya® (fingolimod).
Read more
Viewpoint Thumbnail
On April 17, 2019, Judge Gilstrap of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, in Apicore v. Beloteca, No. 19-cv-00077, held that while the court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a generic drug manufacturer in connection with the patentee’s action seeking a declaratory judgment of noninfringement, venue was not appropriate in the Eastern District of Texas under the applicable patent venue statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
Read more

News & Press

News Thumbnail
Law360 covered developments in a trade secret lawsuit involving X-ray tubes brought on by Mintz client Philips Medical Systems, Inc. against Chinese companies Kunshan GuoLi Electronic Technology Co. Ltd. and its subsidiary, Kunshan Yiyuan Medical Technology Co. Ltd.
Mintz has secured a string of substantial victories in Hatch-Waxman litigation for innovative drug manufacturers Kowa Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Kowa Pharmaceuticals America, Inc., and Nissan Chemical Industries Ltd.

Events

Speaker