Molly R. Grammel

Molly Grammel is a partner in Goodwin’s Intellectual Property Litigation practice and is a member of the firm’s Life Sciences Disputes group. She has extensive federal trial experience in cutting-edge technology IP litigation that spans a diverse set of industries, including biologic and biosimilar drugs and artificial intelligence and machine learning. Molly is a go-to partner for managing complex, high stakes matters, including numerous representations involving products with greater than $1 billion annual US sales. Molly specializes in providing clients with business-focused counseling regarding litigation strategy and developing and executing substantive legal theories through stand-up roles in court. She is a practiced trial advocate who has had significant responsibility for presenting evidence and argument in trials before juries and judges in federal district courts across the country.

Molly also has extensive experience representing clients in appeals to Federal Circuit Courts, and representing patent owners and petitioners in post-grant challenges before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board of the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

At Goodwin, Molly has been an active member of teams litigating eight trials, including five federal jury trials. She has also worked on appellate matters in the Federal Circuit, the First Circuit, and the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, as well as inter partes review proceedings.

Representative matters include:

• In re: HIV Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No. 19-02573-EMC (N.D. Cal.) and related suits in New Mexico and Pennsylvania trial courts; defended Teva Pharmaceuticals against reverse-payment antitrust claims challenging prior settlement of Hatch Waxman patent litigation brought by Gilead regarding Teva’s generic versions of Viread® (tenofovir), Truvada® (tenofovir/emtricitabine), and Atripla® (tenofovir/emtricitabine/efavirenz). Member of stand-up trial team securing a total defense verdict of no anticompetitive reverse payment and no market power, following six-week N.D. Cal. jury trial seeking damages of $3.8 billion (before mandatory trebling) from defendants Teva and Gilead Sciences. Member of team challenging at the New Mexico Supreme Court the exercise of personal jurisdiction over Teva in New Mexico.
• Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. et al. v. Genentech, Inc., C.A. No. 21-04874-EJD (N.D. Cal.); representing Novartis in antibody engineering patent license dispute relating to Novartis’s Cosentyx® (secukinumab) and Ilaris® (canakinumab) products, seeking $209.5 million in damages.
• Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH et al. v. Eli Lilly and Company, C.A. Nos. 18-12029-ADB, 21-10954-ADB (D. Mass.); representing Teva in two suits asserting Teva patents regarding anti-CGRP antibodies against Eli Lilly’s Emgality® (galcanezumab) product, which is approved for overlapping indications with Teva’s Ajovy® (fremanezumab). Member of stand-up trial team obtaining $176.5 million damages verdict and finding of no invalidity following a four-week jury trial.
• Certain Pre-Filled Syringes for Intravitreal Injection and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1207 (USITC); Novartis Pharma AG et al v. Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., C.A. No. 20-00690-DNH (N.D.N.Y.); Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Novartis Pharma AG, et al., IPR2020-01317, IPR2020-01318, IPR2021-00816 (P.T.A.B.). Represented Novartis in ITC investigation and related litigations and inter partes review proceedings relating to assertion of Novartis’s pre-filled syringe patent against Regeneron’s blockbuster EYLEA® (aflibercept) product.
• Genentech, Inc. et al. v. Celltrion, Inc. et al., C.A. Nos. 18-95-CFC, 18-1025-CFC (D. Del.). Represented Celltrion and Teva in BPCIA dispute regarding proposed biosimilar to HERCEPTIN® (trastuzumab) involving 40 asserted patents, including during the pre-suit patent dance and during ensuing litigation. Obtained settlement on the eve of expedited trial that permitted launch of HERZUMA® (trastuzumab) in March 2020.
• Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, S.A. et al., C.A. Nos. 17-7111-KM, 18-1775-KM, 18-5288-KM (D.N.J.). Represented Dr. Reddy’s in second-wave infringement suit regarding Dr. Reddy’s proposed generic versions of SUBOXONE® (buprenorphine/naloxone) sublingual films, including during preliminary injunction proceedings and successful expedited appeal therefrom, resulting in a finding by the Federal Circuit that the district court committed legal error and abused its discretion in entering an injunction, and that one of the plaintiffs’ second-wave infringement cases is likely barred by claim preclusion. The case concluded with a favorable settlement under which Dr. Reddy’s received $72 million.
• Reckitt Benckiser Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, S.A. et al., No. 14-1451-RGA (D. Del.). Represented Dr. Reddy’s in Hatch-Waxman suit regarding Dr. Reddy’s proposed generic versions of SUBOXONE® (buprenorphine/naloxone) sublingual films. Member of stand-up trial team securing a defense judgment of non-infringement of all asserted claims, affirmed on appeal following two-week bench trial.
• Manufacturing Resources Int’l, Inc. v. Civiq Smartscapes, LLC et al., C.A. No. 17-269-RGA (D. Del.). Represented defendants against claims of patent infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition and deceptive trade practices. Successfully obtained dismissal with prejudice of 13 of the asserted patents as well as all trademark infringement claims and a favorable settlement regarding remaining claims.
• Veracode, Inc. et al v. Appthority, Inc., No. 12-10487-DPW (D. Mass.). Represented patent owner in three-week jury trial  bringing infringement claims against a competitor, resulting in verdict and post-trial judgment as a matter of law of willful infringement and entry of a permanent injunction. The affirmed damages award exceeded the infringer’s profits.
• Various non-public representations, including advising global innovator pharmaceutical company contemplating patent assertion suits against competitors, counseling biosimilar developer in pre-litigation matters, and confidential arbitration proceedings involving pharmaceutical IP licensing disputes between innovators.

In addition to her IP work, Molly was also one of the Goodwin attorneys on the team that defended former SAC Capital Advisors portfolio manager Mathew Martoma in a four-week S.D.N.Y. jury trial. In the largest-ever insider trading prosecution brought to trial, Mathew faced charges that he improperly obtained non-public information about the results of a high-profile pharmaceutical clinical trial and used this information to make trades resulting in profit and avoided losses of over $275 million. Molly was also a member of a Goodwin trial team defending employment and contract claims in a three-week E.D. Mo. jury trial.

Pro Bono

Molly devotes a significant portion of her practice to pro bono matters. In 2020 and 2022, Molly led teams winning two contested immigration trials, obtaining grants of asylum for Ugandan refugees who fled to the United States following persecution in their home country on the basis of their sexual orientation. Molly has also assisted legal permanent residents in applying for U.S. citizenship and is currently representing four young girls in their green card applications after obtaining awards of Special Immigrant Juvenile status based on abuse or neglect in their home country.

In addition to these matters, in 2017, Molly completed a six-month rotation with the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office. During this time, she first-chaired fifteen trials, including five jury trials. Molly also argued dozens of evidentiary and non-evidentiary motions, including successfully arguing for the admissibility of presumptively excluded evidence at a consolidated hearing addressing a group of cases brought in Woburn District Court prior to 2014.

Molly is a member of the Boston Bar Association and the IP Section of the Federal Bar Association.

Molly was named to Benchmark Litigation’s “40 & Under Hot List” for 2023. She has been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America Ones to Watch for her work in Litigation - Intellectual Property and Litigation - Patent 2021-2022.

Molly has contributed to the following publications and presentations:

• Editor, Big Molecule Watch, Goodwin’s award-winning blog that reports real-time analysis and updates on regulatory issues, litigation, legislation and other news in the developing world of biosimilars.
• Co-author, “Protecting Data in the MedTech Industry,” MedTech Intelligence, August 2019

Molly has contributed to the following presentations:

• Speaker, “AI in Education:  Privacy and Data Security Considerations,” Goodwin Higher Education Symposium Webinar, October 2021
• Speaker, “Biosimilars Patent Challenges at the PTAB,” Goodwin Webinar, May 2020
• Speaker, “Traditional and Alternative Dispute Resolution Methods,” New England Corporate Counsel Association Seminar, March 2020
• Speaker, “Unlocking the Value of Data in MedTech: Protect Your IP, Protect Your Business: Trade Secrets Deep Dive (Part 2),” Goodwin Webinar, April 2019
• Speaker, “Unlocking the Value of Data in MedTech: Protections, Pitfalls, and Strategies (Part 1),” Goodwin Webinar, March 2019
• Speaker, “Practical Strategies for Pharmaceutical Companies in U.S. Patent Litigation,” Goodwin, Taiwan Research-based Biopharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, and Taiwan Generic Pharmaceutical Association Seminar, January 2016
• Speaker, “Recent Supreme Court Decisions in Patent Cases – How Helpful Have They Been?” Practicing Law Institute - Patent Litigation 2015 Seminar, November 2015
• Speaker, “Teva v. Sandoz SCOTUS Decision,” Goodwin Webinar, February 2015
• Speaker, “Patent Litigation 2014: Recent Development and Changes in Patent Law and Their Effects on Patent Litigation,” Practicing Law Institute - Patent Litigation 2014 Seminar, November 2014