Skip To Content

Primary Practice Areas:

Industry Focus:

Education:

  • Fordham University, J.D., Associate Editor of the Fordham Law Review, Editor of the Fordham Environmental Law Report
  • Columbia College, B.A.

Bar Admissions:

  • New Jersey
  • New York
  • Pennsylvania
  • Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS)
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  • United States District Court for the District of Columbia
  • United States District Court for the District of New Jersey
  • United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
  • United States District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • United States District Court for the Western District of New York
  • United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin

Languages:

  • English

Philip L. Hirschhorn is an experienced trial lawyer specializing in patent litigation and other intellectual property proceedings, including post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeals Board of the USPTO. Phil’s extensive experience, spanning more than 30 years, includes bench trials, jury trials, PTAB proceedings, and arbitrations. He has represented clients in traditional infringement/validity litigations as well as Hatch-Waxman (Paragraph IV) litigations. Phil also has experience handling copyright, trademark/trade dress, and trade secret litigation. Phil also advises clients on commercial patent licensing agreements. The subject matter of these engagements is diverse, including chemical, pharmaceutical, consumer products, medical devices, graphics, visualization technologies, apparel, and radiotherapy software and devices.

Philip L. Hirschhorn focuses his practice on patent litigation and counseling. He prides himself on working with clients to understand their businesses thoroughly, including the ways in which intellectual property litigation affects their business objectives. Clients can rest assured that Phil will go the extra mile, both on his own and as part of a team, to help clients solve their legal challenges.

Phil’s extensive experience, spanning more than 30 years, includes bench trials, jury trials, and arbitrations. He has represented clients in traditional infringement/validity litigations as well as Hatch-Waxman (Paragraph IV) litigations. Phil also has experience handling copyright, trademark/trade dress, and trade secret litigation. Phil advises clients on commercial patent licensing agreements. The subject matter of these engagements is diverse, including chemical, pharmaceutical, consumer products, medical devices, graphics, visualization technologies, apparel, and radiotherapy software and devices.

In addition to his patent litigation experience, Phil counsels clients on the interplay between the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and district court actions. He has extensive PTAB litigation experience, having assisted both patent owners and petitioners.

Phil’s prowess in intellectual property law has earned him many accolades over the years. Managing Intellectual Property has named him an IP Star nearly every year since 2013, and he has been named among IAM’s Patent 1000 list several times. He also has been named a New York Super Lawyer in the practice area of patent litigation.

Phil earned a bachelor’s degree from Columbia College and his law degree from Fordham University School of Law, where he also served as Associate Editor of the Fordham Law Review and Editor of the Fordham Environmental Law Report.

Phil is a frequent speaker on IP litigation topics such as recent developments in Paragraph IV litigation, patent damages, and trade secret litigation. He is a current Co-Chair of the PTAB/TTAB committee of the Federal Circuit Bar Association and the immediate past chair of the Patents Committee of the New York City Bar Association.

 

Memberships
  • The Federal Circuit Bar Association, Member
    • PTAB/TTAB Committee, Co-Chair
  • New York City Bar Association, Member
    • Patents Committee, Former Chair
  • New York Intellectual Property Law Association, Member
  • Intellectual Property Owners Association, Member
    • Patent Litigation Committee
Representative litigation experience includes:
  • Orthobond Corporation v. Burel et al., Civil Action No. 3:22-cv-00217-FLW-RLS (District of New Jersey) − (trade secret, unfair competition, and breach of contract dispute relating to surface technologies)
  • AltaThera Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Hyloris Pharmaceuticals SA et al., Civil Action No. 1:22-cv-04620 (District of Illinois) − (trade secret, unfair competition, breach of contract, and correction of inventorship dispute relating to antiarrhythmic agents)
  • Zoetis, Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim Vetmedica, GmbH, Civ. Action No. 1:21-cv-08319 (Southern District of New York) (Representing Zoetis in patent royalty dispute)
  • PeriRx, Inc. v. The Regents of the University of California, et al., Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-02212 (Eastern District of Pennsylvania) – (Defend The Regents in patent licensing dispute)
  • Best Medical International, Inc. v. Elekta AB et al., Civil Action No. 1-19-cv-03409 (Northern District of Georgia) – (Enforcing patents on radiation therapy for the treatment of tumors)
  • Best Medical International, Inc. v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1-18-cv-01599 (District of Delaware) – (Enforcing patents on radiation therapy for the treatment of tumors)
  • H. Lundbeck A/S et al. v. MSN Laboratories Private Limited et al., Civil Action No.: 1-18-cv-00114 (District of Delaware) – (Challenging patents on vortioxetine)
  • Forest Laboratories, LLC f/k/a Forest Laboratories, Inc. et al v. MSN Laboratories Private Limited et al., Civil Action No.: 2-17-cv-10140 (District of New Jersey) – (Challenging patents on levomilnacipran)
  • Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms. Inc. v. HEC Pharm. Co., Ltd., Civil Action No. 3:15-cv-05982 (District of New Jersey) – (Challenging patents on linagliptin)
  • Align Technology, Inc. v. 3Shape A/S and 3Shape Inc., Civil Action No. 17-1646 (LPS) (District of Delaware) – (Defense of patent infringement claims regarding intraoral scanners and software for the use of intraoral scanners)
  • Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. MSN Laboratories Private Limited, et al., Civil Action No.: 3-18-cv-00675 (District of New Jersey) – (Challenging patent on fosaprepitant)
  • Tianhai Lace USA, Inc., v. Lord & Taylor LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 1:17-cv-01328 (Southern District of New York) (Defend apparel manufacturer and customer in actions regarding alleged copyright infringement)
  • Tianhai Lace USA, Inc., v. Lord & Taylor LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 1:18-cv-06616 (Southern District of New York) (Defend apparel manufacturer and customer in actions regarding alleged copyright infringement)
  • Silcotek Corp. v. Entech Instrs. Inc., Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-03274 (Central District of California) (Defend against assertion of patent on passivating gas in a gas transfer system)
  • Horizon Pharm, Ireland Ltd. v. IGI Laboratories, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:15-cv-05022 (District of New Jersey) – (Hatch-Waxman litigation regarding diclofenac)
  • Respire Medical Holdings LLC v. Oravanosa, LLC, Civil Action No. 1:16-cv-05880 (KPF) (Southern District of New York) – (Defend patent infringement claims regarding oral devices for the treatment of obstructive sleep apnea)
  • Sirona Dental Sys. GmbH v. 3Shape A/S, 1:15-cv-00278 (District of Delaware) – (Defend against patent infringement claims on dental imaging systems)
  • Zoetis, LLC v. Roadrunner Pharmacy, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-3193 NLH/AMD (District of New Jersey) (Patent and trademark infringement action involving FDA-approved canine anti-itch remedy, Apoquel®)
  • Zoetis, LLC v. AX Pharm. Corp., Civil Action No. 16-02642-PHX-GMS (District of Arizona) (Patent infringement action involving FDA-approved canine anti-itch remedy, Apoquel®)
  • Zoetis, LLC v. Attix Pharms. Inc., Civil Action No. 16-02640-PHX-DJH (District of Arizona) (Patent infringement action involving FDA-approved canine anti-itch remedy, Apoquel®)
  • In re Application of Akebia Therapeutics, Inc. for an Order Granting Leave to Issue Subpoena for the Taking of Discovery Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1782, 3:14-mc-80294-JD (Northern District of California) – (Defend against discovery of confidential material in response to subpoenas issued pursuant to § 1782)
  • Boehringer Ingelheim Pharms. Inc. v Accord Healthcare, et al., Civil Action No. 3:16-cv-00852 (District of New Jersey) – (Represent generic manufacturer in Hatch-Waxman dispute against charges of infringement related to linagliptin/Tradjenta® and linagliptin and metformin/Jentadueto®)
  • Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Pharmaceutics Int’l Inc., Civil Action No. 2:14-cv-01347 (District of New Jersey) – (Defend Hatch-Waxman dispute concerning zoledronic acid or Zometa®)
  • Olaf Sööt Design, LLC v. Stage Technologies Inc. and Metropolitan Opera Association, Inc., Civil Action No. 13-cv-7326 (Southern District of New York) – (Defend patent infringement regarding stage winch systems)
  • Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Actavis LLC, Civil Action No. 2:13-cv-01028 (District of New Jersey) – (Defend Hatch-Waxman dispute concerning zoledronic acid or Zometa® and Reclast®)
  • Ethox Chemicals LLC and James Tanner v. The Coca-Cola Company, Civil Action No. 6:12-cv-01682 (District of South Carolina) – (Omitted inventor action under 35 U.S.C. § 256 concerning gas barrier technology)
  • Luitpold v. Amneal Pharms., et al., 3:12-cv-05064 (District of New Jersey) – (Hatch Waxman litigation assertion regarding ketorolac tromethamine)
  • Li v. Flyboard, Inc., Civil Action No. 12-cv-61323 (Southern District of Florida) – (Defend patent litigation regarding water jet recreational devices)
  • Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Wockhardt USA LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-03967 (District of New Jersey) – (Hatch-Waxman litigation regarding zoledronic acid)
  • Cheese Systems, Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Systems, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-cv-21-C (Western District of Wisconsin) – (Guided patent owners in successful infringement action through summary judgment, appeal and trial)
  • Eagle v. Edcomm, Inc., Civil Action No. 11-4303(RB) (Eastern District of Pennsylvania) – (Trial counsel in defense of suit involving alleged theft of LinkedIn account resulting in no damages and no equitable relief)
  • Wm. Wrigley Jr. Company v. Cadbury Adams USA LLC, Civil Action No. 1:04-cv-00346 (Northern District of Illinois) – (Defense of leading confectionery company against charges of patent infringement related to use of physiological cooling agents in chewing gums)
  • Silicon Graphics, Inc. v. ATI Technologies, et al., Civil Action No. 06-cv-0611 (Western District of Wisconsin), 2008-1334 (Federal Circuit) – (Representation of patent holder at trial in action for patent infringement resulting in jury verdict in defense of computer graphics technology)
  • S.C. Johnson & Sons, Inc., et al. v. The Dial Corporation, Civil Action No. 3:08-cv-00505 (Western District of Wisconsin) – (Defense of a leading consumer goods company against charges of patent infringement related to heating technology for plug-in air fresheners)
  • Takeda Pharm. et al. v. Aurobindo Pharm., Civil Action No. 1:10-cv-00247 (Southern District of New York) (Defense of ANDA filer in Hatch-Waxman litigations regarding pharmaceuticals for the treatment of diabetes)
  • Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Amneal Pharm., Civil Action No. 2:08-cv-00493 (District of New Jersey) – (Represent branded pharmaceutical company in Hatch-Waxman litigation regarding aqueous ranitidine)
  • Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. v. Eon Labs Manufacturing, Inc., Civil Action No. 1:00-cv-09089 (Southern District of New York) (Trial counsel for branded pharmaceutical company in Hatch-Waxman litigation against generic drug company regarding anti-depressant and smoking cessation drugs)
  • Glaxo Wellcome, Inc. v. Andrx, Civil Action No. 02-1348 (Southern District of Florida) – (Representation of branded pharmaceutical company in Hatch-Waxman litigation against ANDA filer regarding anti-depressant)
  • Metrologic Instruments, Inc. v. Symbol Technologies, Civil Action No. 2-06-cv-2199 (District of New Jersey) – (Represent patent owner in patent infringement lawsuit directed to bar code scanning technologies)
  • PSC Scanning, Inc. v. Metrologic Instruments, Inc., Civil Action No. 6-04-cv-6150 (District of Oregon) – (Defense of bar code scanner manufacturer against claims of patent infringement)
  • Powers Fasteners, Inc. v. Illinois Tool Works, Civil Action No. 1:06-cv-11500 (Southern District of New York) – (Represent patent owner in patent infringement action against competitor for novel screw fastener technology)
  • Financial Technologies International Inc. v. DataSmith LLC, et al., Civil Action No. 1:99-cv-9351 (Southern District of New York) – (Represent plaintiff in trade secret misappropriation case against former consultant)
  • Novamedix Ltd. v. Kinetic Concepts, Inc., (Western District of Texas) – Civil Action No. s-92-cv-00177 (Represent medical device manufacturer in action for patent infringement and trade secret misappropriation against competitor in deep vein thrombosis prevention device)
  • M.J. Woods Inc. v. Unilever, et al., Civil Action No. 1:01-cv-3135 (Southern District of New York and American Arbitration Association) – (Defense of a leading consumer goods company in successful trial defense of trade secret misappropriation and patent licensing issues)
  • Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp. v. Amgen, (Endispute Arbitration) – (Represent claimant at trial in patent licensing dispute related to multi-billion dollar biologic)
  • Internet Machines LLC v. Inventure, Inc., et al., Civil Action No. 6:10-cv-00023 (Eastern District of Texas) – (Defense of alleged infringer from claims of patent infringement related to peripheral component interface switching technology
Representative International Trade Commission experience includes:
  • In re Certain Color Intraoral Scanners and Related Hardware and Software, Investigation No. 337-TA-1091 (defense of respondent in multi-patent proceeding)
Phil’s representative PTAB experience includes:
  • Orthobond Corporation v. Molecular Surface Technologies, LLC, DER2021-00008
  • Transgene and BioInvent International AB v. Replimune Limited, PGR2022-00014
  • Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00053
  • Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00071
  • Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00072
  • Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00075
  • Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00076
  • Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00077
  • Elekta Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00067
  • Elekta Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00070
  • Elekta Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00073
  • Elekta Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00074
  • 3Shape Medical A/S v. Sirona Dental Systems GmbH, IPR2016-00481
  • Stage Technologies, Inc. v. Olaf Sööt Design, LLC, IPR2015-00116
  • Stage Technologies, Inc. v. Olaf Sööt Design, LLC, IPR2015-00117
  • Patent 1000, IAM, 2014 — 2016, 2018 — 2023
  • IP Star, Managing Intellectual Property, 2013 — 2016, 2018 — 2023
  • Super Lawyer, New York Metro area, 2017 — 2019

When not in the office, Phil enjoys spending time traveling and actively exploring new places, like a hike in the Rockies, skiing in Utah, walking on the Great Wall of China, or riding a bike through Paris.

Philip L. Hirschhorn smiles in front of a body of water Philip L. Hirschhorn smiles with family while skiing

Let's Plan

Panitch Schwarze commits the time to listen to and evaluate each client’s unique needs so we can advise on the best forms of IP protection.

Contact Us
Sign Up for Our Newsletter