Madeline Bordynoski

Madeline Bordynoski
Washington, DC
+1 202 346 4151

Madeline Bordynoski is an associate in Goodwin's Intellectual Property Litigation practice and is a member of the firm’s Life Sciences Disputes group. Madeline focuses her practice on pharmaceutical patent litigation, including cases under the Hatch-Waxman Act.


Madeline has participated in all phases of patent litigation, including fact and expert discovery, motion practice, and trial. She has experience litigating patents involving a broad range of technologies, including pharmaceutical sciences, display systems, and computer security software.

Madeline’s recent work includes:

  • In re: HIV Antitrust Litigation, C.A. No. 19-02573-EMC (N.D. Cal.): 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). Secured 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.
  • Teva Pharmaceuticals International GmbH et al v. Eli Lilly and Company: Represented patent holder Teva before the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts in patent litigation involving Teva’s Ajovy® (fremanezumab) and Lilly’s Emgality® (galcanezumab) migraine therapies. Following a 3-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Teva, finding all asserted claims valid and willfully infringed and awarding Teva over $176 million in damages.
  • Adverio Pharma GmbH, et al. v. MSN Laboratories Pvt. Ltd. et al. (D. Del.): Represented MSN Laboratories in Hatch-Waxman patent litigation concerning the drug riociguat (Adempas®), which is indicated for chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension and pulmonary arterial hypertension.
  • Ultravision Technologies, LLC v. Shenzhen Absen Optoelectronic Co., Ltd. (E.D. Tex.): Represented defendants against claims of patent infringement relating to LED displays. The jury found that Absen’s products did not infringe the asserted patents and that the asserted patents were invalid.




The George Washington University Law School

(with Honors)


Pepperdine University



  • District of Columbia
  • Colorado


Madeline's publications include:

  • Author, “China’s Stealthy Sovereignty: The Importance of Objective Opinio Juris,” 50 Geo. Washi. Int’l L. Rev. 923, 2018