Natasha E. Daughtrey

Natasha Daughtrey is a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property Litigation practice and is a member of the firm’s Life Sciences Disputes group. She joined Goodwin in 2011. 

Ms. Daughtrey focuses her practice on intellectual property litigation and counseling related to patents, trade secrets, and trademarks. Ms. Daughtrey represents companies in all stages of intellectual property litigation from pre-suit investigations through trial and appeals, and advises clients at various stages of their life cycle on intellectual property strategy and due diligence. Ms. Daughtrey has broad experience litigating in federal courts as well as in proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, including inter partes reviews. The technologies involved in her cases are broad, ranging from pharmaceuticals and medical devices to transmission lines and cosmetics. Ms. Daughtrey also maintains an active pro bono practice that includes representing clients in clemency and immigration related matters.

Ms. Daughtrey is an editor of Goodwin’s Big Molecule Watch blog, dedicated to providing resources and observations through Goodwin’s active watch of the world of biologics, biosimilars, and the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). Ms. Daughtrey is also a key contributor to Goodwin’s Founders Workbench, an online resource for start-ups, emerging companies, and the entrepreneurial community. She is passionate about diversity and inclusion in the legal profession, and serves as the co-chair of the Los Angeles chapter of Women@Goodwin to attract, promote, and retain women attorneys.

Representative matters include:

• Representing Teva in an ongoing patent infringement litigation against Eli Lilly and Company related to Eli Lilly’s Emgality® (galcanezumab) product for the treatment of migraine.
• Representing Celltrion and Teva in patent infringement litigation brought by Genentech and others under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) related to Celltrion and Teva’s biosimilar rituximab product, Truxima®. The case settled favorably, allowing Celltrion and Teva to launch the first rituximab biosimilar available in the U.S.
• Representing Spatz in patent infringement action brought by L’Oréal USA, Inc. related to cosmetics.
• Representing AMAG Pharmaceuticals in patent infringement action related to a proposed generic version of Feraheme® (ferumoxytol) for the treatment of iron-deficiency anemia.
• Representing an individual in a patent infringement and unfair competition case related to electrical transmission lines.
• Representing Actavis in a patent infringement action filed by Valeant Pharmaceuticals Int’l and others under the Hatch-Waxman Act relating to Actavis’s filing of an abbreviated new drug application for generic versions of Valeant’s drug UCERIS®.At trial, the Court granted Actavis’s motion for judgment of non-infringement under Rule 52(c), allowing for the launch of a generic version of Uceris®.The Federal Circuit later upheld the trial court’s ruling.
• Representing Teva in Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation brought by Genzyme in response to Teva’s filing of an abbreviated new drug application seeking approval to market a generic version of Genzyme’s stem cell mobilizing agent, Mozobil® (plerixafor).
• Representing Lupin in patent infringement litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act in response to Lupin’s filing of an abbreviated new drug application seeking approval to market a generic version of Senju’s Prolensa® (bromfenac ophthalmic solution) medication.
• Representing Roxane in a patent infringement litigation filed by Prometheus in response to Roxane’s filing of an abbreviated new drug application seeking approval to market a generic version of Prometheus’s IBS treatment drug, Lotronex® (alosetron hydrochloride). After a bench trial, the District Court found in favor of Roxane that Prometheus’s patent was invalid.

Prior to joining Goodwin, Ms. Daughtrey was a Make a Difference Fellow at Brooklyn Legal Services Corporation A in the Individual Housing Unit where she represented tenants and tenant associations in housing litigation and appeals.

During law school, Ms. Daughtrey was a judicial intern to the Honorable Ronald M. Whyte, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California and as a legal intern with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of California in the Civil Division. She was a member of San Diego Law Review.

Ms. Daughtrey is on the Board of Directors of the Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association (LAIPLA), as well as the chairperson of several LAIPLA committees. She is also a planning committee member for the USC IP Law Institute.

Patexia named Ms. Daughtrey as a top ANDA litigator in 2020. 

Ms. Daughtrey’s publications and speaking events include:

• Moderator, Women in IP Spring Event: Genius of Women – Fireside Chat with Author Janice Kaplan
• Five patent issues that European biosimilar developers should consider before entering the US market, European Pharmaceutical Review, Volume 25, Issue 03 (2020)
• Webinar speaker, 5G and SEPs on Appeal: Insights from the FTC-Qualcomm Oral Argument (February 2020)
• US Launch: Five litigation strategies European biosimilar developers should know, PharmaIQ, November 2019
• Guide to Biosimilars Litigation and Regulation in the U.S., 2019-2020 ed., published by Thomson Reuters, November 2019 (contributor) 
• Medicare Negotiation and Competitive Licensing Act: An Ambitious Challenge to Biologic Patents, Biosimilar Development, May 2019 (co-authored)
• Intellectual Property Considerations and Protectable Content in Mobile Apps, Westlaw, June 2018
• Does Indication-Specific Pricing Fit Generics With Carveouts?, Law360, December 2017 (co-authored)
• The Patent Trial and Appeal Board Second Anniversary: Reflections and Strategies for the Years Ahead, Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, December 2014
• House Passes Patent Reform Legislation, IP Advisor, January 2014
• Challenges in Asserting the Advice of Counsel Defense, New York Law Journal, July 2012