Tedd W. Van Buskirk

Tedd W. Van Buskirk

5.0
Rating: 8.7

Licensed for 30 years

Intellectual property Lawyer at Cranford, NJ
Practice Areas: Intellectual Property, Life Sciences & Biotechnology, Patent Infringement ... +3 more

20 Commerce Drive, Cranford, NJ

About Tedd

Biography

Practice Areas

6

Practice Areas

Life Sciences and Biotechnology 20%

Hatch-Waxman litigation, counseling and strategy; patent prosecution; licensing; due diligence in all areas of pharmaceuticals, biologics, biotechnology, medical devices, and diagnostics

30 years

20%
Patent Application 20%

Prepare and prosecute patent applications in mechanical, chemical, and pharmaceutical arts as well as consumer products before USPTO and PTAB

30 years

20%
Patent Infringement 20%

Patent infringement litigation and appeals in Federal courts throughout the country, with emphasis on pharmaceuticals (Hatch-Waxman) and medical devices

30 years

20%
Trademark Application 10%

Prepare and prosecute trademark applications and handle Oppositions and Cancellation proceedings before USPTO and TTAB

30 years

10%
Trademark Infringement 10%

Trademark infringement, Lanham Act claims, Oppositions and Cancellations in Federal courts and before TTAB

30 years

10%

Fees and Rates

We have not found any cost information for this lawyer


Looking for an attorney? Avvo can help.

search module image

Search our directory

Quickly connect with top attorneys through our legal directory to get help with your legal issue.

chat module image

Avvo's live chat agents can help coordinate a consultation with a local attorney.

Chat with a live agent who can match you with the right attorney for your legal needs.

Chat with

Licenses

Licensed in New York for 29 years

State: New York

Acquired: 1996

Currently Registered

No misconduct found

Licensed in New Jersey for 30 years

State: New Jersey

Acquired: 1995

Active

No misconduct found

Location

Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik

20 Commerce Drive, Cranford, NJ, 07016

Ad

Transform legal challenges into solutions.

Connect now to review your situation.

The Avvo Rating explained

display-bg

The Avvo Rating explained

Tedd W. Van Buskirk's Reviews

Avvo Review Score

5.0 /5.0

1 Client Review

5 star (1)
4 star (0)
3 star (0)
2 star (0)
1 star (0)

Posted by Alden | May 25, 2013

Felt Like a Valued Client

Let me preface this review by saying that I am neither wealthy nor a Very Important Person. But Tedd made me feel like one. He responded quickly to my questions and worked efficiently to get the job done. He also took his time to explain everything to me and get to know me as a client. I felt like he... was on my side throughout the whole process. T's crossed and I's dotted all the way. In summary: He's just a really nice person who does a good job. What more could one want?

See All Client Reviews

Tedd W. Van Buskirk's Lawyer Endorsements

Endorse Tedd

No Endorsement Data Available Yet
This attorney hasn't received any attorney endorsements recently on Avvo.

No Endorsement Data Available Yet
This attorney hasn't created any attorney endorsements recently on Avvo.

Experience

Rating:  8.7 (Excellent)

Honors

2019

AV Preeminent Peer Review Rated, Martindale-Hubbell

2019

Acritas Star, Acritas

2019

LMG Life Sciences Star, LMG

Work Experience

2016 - Present

Partner, Lerner, David, Littenberg, Krumholz & Mentlik

2012 - 2015

Shareholder, Polsinelli PC

2009 - 2012

Partner, K&L Gates

2004 - 2009

Partner, Hogan & Hartson LLP

2001 - 2004

Associate, Frommer, Lawrence & Haug

1998 - 2001

Associate, Milbank, Tweed, Hadley & McCloy LLP

1994 - 1998

Associate, Hopgood, Calimafde, Kalil & Judlowe

Associations

American Intellectual Property Law Association

Member

International Trademark Association

Member

New York Intellectual Property Law Association

Member

Intellectual Property Owners Association

Member

American Chemical Society

Member

Sample of Legal Cases

Amneal Pharmaceuticals LLC v. Alkermes Pharma Ireland Ltd.

pending

Kashiv Pharma LLC v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al.

pending

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al.

Final Written Decision of invalidity of all claims

H. Lundbeck A/S et al v. Cipla Limited et al.

pending

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Purdue Pharma L.P. et al.

Final Written Decision of invalidity of all claims

Celgene Corp. v. Lotus Pharm. Co. Ltd. et al.

pending

Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corp., et al. v. Aurobindo, et al.

pending

Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd et al. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. et al.

pending

Hospira, Inc. v. Jiangsu Hengrui Medicine Co., Ltd.

pending

Accord et al. v. Daiichi Sankyo and Ube

Final Written Decision of invalidity of all claims, affirmed on appeal

Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation, et al. v. Sandoz Inc., et al.

pending

Prometheus Laboratories Inc. v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC et al.

pending

Life Brands v. Monsterops

Favorable settlement

Endo v. Noven

Settled April 2014

Helsinn Healthcare S.A., et al. v. Dr. Reddy's Laboratories, Ltd. et al.

pending

B&E Dimensional Stoneworks v. Wicki et al.

Plaintiff dismissed case in April 2013

Shire v. Taro

Favorable settlement

Medicis v. Taro

Favorable settlement

CIMA Labs Inc. v. Novel Laboratories Inc.

Settled December 2014

Takeda v. Teva

Trial verdict, affirmed on appeal

Akzo Nobel and Organon v. Alphapharm et al.

Favorable settlement following summary judgment

GlaxoSmithKline v. Mutual

Favorable settlement

Collagenex v. URL/Mutual

Medichem v. Rolabo and Stampa v. Jackson

Favorable

Glaxo v. Novopharm et al.

Pfizer v. F&S Alloys & Minerals

Trial verdict

See More Legal Cases

Education

1995

New York Law School

JD - Juris Doctor

1992

The State University of New Jersey, Rutgers College

BA - Bachelor of Arts

Speaking Engagements

2016

Paragraph IV Disputes

Parallel Proceedings Moot Court: District Court and PTAB Mock Pharmaceutical Patent Invalidity Hearings

2015

Paragraph IV Disputes

Questions of Specific and General Jurisdiction in a Paragraph IV Case: Exploring Daimler's Applicability to Hatch-Waxman

2013

Paragraph IV Disputes Master Symposium

The Start of the Paragraph IV Litigation Countdown; The Paragraph IV Certication and Notice Letter

2013

Paragraph IV Disputes

Asserting Invalidity or Non-Infringement Under Paragraph IV: Exploring the ANDA Applicant's Pre-Litigation Obligations and Options

2012

Paragraph IV Disputes

The Throwing of the Gauntlet: the Paragraph IV Notice Letter

2010

Paragraph IV Disputes

Litigating with Multiple ANDA Filers: Brand Name and Generic Perspectives

2010

FDA Boot Camp

Patent and IP Overview for Drugs and Biologics: Hatch-Waxman, Trade Dress, and More

2009

10th Anniversary Maximizing Pharmaceutical Patent Life Cycles

Patent and IP Overview for Drugs and Biologics: Hatch-Waxman, Trade Dress, and More

2007

Pharma/Biotech Industry Forum on Patent Portfolio Managment

Controlling Spiraling Costs as Pipelines Get Filled and Portfolios Go Global

2007

Paragraph IV Disputes

Let the Games Begin: The Start of the Paragraph IV Lawsuit - New Considerations, Challenges and Allegations

2006

Maximizing Pharmaceutical Patent Life Cycles

Updated Guidelines for Paragraph IV Certifications and Notice Letters

2005

Maximizing Pharmaceutical Patent Life Cycles

Preparation and Submission of Paragraph IV Certifications and Notice Letters

Publications

2015

2011

Food and Drug Law Institute (FDLI) Top 20 Food and Drug Cases, 2010, & Cases to Watch, 2011; Chapter 16 AstraZeneca v. Apotex

Languages

French

Avvo Rating

Our Rating is calculated using information the lawyer has included on their profile in addition to the information we collect from state bar associations and other organizations that license legal professionals. Attorneys who claim their profiles and provide Avvo with more information tend to have a higher rating than those who do not.

What determines Avvo Rating?
  • Experience & background Years licensed, work experience, education
  • Legal community recognition Peer endorsements, associations, awards
  • Legal thought leadership Publications, speaking engagements
  • Discipline Disciplinary information may not be comprehensive, or updated. We recommend that you always check a lawyer's disciplinary status with their respective state bar association before hiring them.
Avvo Rating Levels
10.0 - 9.0 Superb8.9 - 8.0 Excellent7.9 - 7.0 Very Good6.9 - 6.0 Good5.9 - 5.0 Average4.9 - 4.0 Concern3.9 - 3.0 Caution2.9 - 2.0 Strong Caution1.9 - 1.0 Extreme Caution