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 and competition litigation that spans a diverse set of industries, including biologic drugs, medical devices, software products, and regulated consumer products. Molly is a go-to partner for managing complex, high stakes matters, often handling cases 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 routinely examines lead witnesses at trial and has significant responsibility for presenting evidence and argument in court before juries and judges across the country.

Molly also has significant 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 ten 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:

• Teradata Corporation v. SAP SE et al., C.A. No. 18-06477-HSG (N.D. Cal.); represented Teradata in asserting antitrust and trade secret claims against SAP, alleging that SAP unlawfully conditioned sales of its S/4HANA enterprise software on purchases of its HANA database in violation of Section 1 of the Sherman Act. The matter resolved shortly before trial with a $480 million settlement in Teradata’s favor.
• Certain Disposable Vaporizer Devices, Inv. No. 337-TA-1410 and Certain Disposable Vaporizer Devices and Components and Packaging Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1381 (USITC); represented manufacturers of regulated products in defending unfair competition and patent infringement claims in two related investigations at the International Trade Commission, leading to withdrawal of one complaint on the eve of trial in the first investigation and a denial of request for a temporary exclusion order and a finding of no violation and no remedy (based on successful patent invalidation) in the second investigation. Member of stand-up trial team examining patent invalidity expert witness.
• In re Aflibercept Patent Litigation, No. 24-md-3103 (N.D.W. Va.) and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., C.A. No. 24-08760 (D.N.J.); representing Sandoz in BPCIA litigation concerning proposed biosimilar to Eylea® (aflibercept) filed in New Jersey and in a related multi-district litigation, involving more than 40 asserted patents concerning pharmaceutical formulations, dosing regimen, biologic manufacturing methods, devices, etc. Handled lead invalidity expert witness in evidentiary preliminary injunction proceedings, which concluded before a hearing in a favorable settlement for Sandoz clearing a path to launch by the end of 2026.
• 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). Examined lead in-house legal fact witness concerning absence of conspiracy following privilege waiver, in defense of claim seeking damages of $3.8 billion (before mandatory trebling) from defendants Teva and Gilead Sciences. Trial concluded after six weeks with a total defense jury verdict of no anticompetitive reverse payment and no market power. 
• Novartis Vaccines and Diagnostics, Inc. et al. v. Genentech, Inc., C.A. No. 21-04874-EJD (N.D. Cal.) and C.A. No. 21-02892 (CA Super. Ct.) (on remand); representing Novartis in antibody engineering patent license dispute relating to Novartis’s Cosentyx® (secukinumab) and Ilaris® (canakinumab) products, seeking $209.5 million in damages and defending cross-claim for payment of post-expiration royalties.
• 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 examining several fact witnesses concerning damages and willful infringement. Trial concluded after four weeks with a $176.5 million damages verdict and finding of no invalidity, which was successfully preserved on appeal to the Federal Circuit.
• 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., No. 14-1451-RGA (D. Del.); 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 Hatch-Waxman suit and second-wave litigation regarding Dr. Reddy’s proposed generic versions of SUBOXONE® (buprenorphine/naloxone) sublingual films. Member of stand-up trial team examining noninfringement fact witness. Trial concluded after two weeks leading to a judgment of noninfringement, and second litigation concluded with a successful expedited appeal of preliminary injunction proceedings securing ability to launch and a favorable settlement under which Dr. Reddy’s received $72 million.
• 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 and competition 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. Molly has 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, acting as lead trial counsel in the second of these trials. Molly has also assisted legal permanent residents in applying for US citizenship and four young girls in obtaining their green cards 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. In 2024, Molly was selected as a participant in the Lead Counsel Summit, and she is active in supporting LCS as an alumni.

Legal 500 US named Molly as a recommended lawyer for her work in Patents litigation: full coverage in 2025. Molly was named to Benchmark Litigation’s “40 & Under Hot List” for 2023 and 2024. She has been recognized five times by The Best Lawyers in America Ones to Watch for her work in Litigation - Intellectual Property and Litigation - Patent.

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, “Chapter 8: Mediating Section 337 Disputes Regarding Infringing Imports at the International Trade Commission,” ADR Advocacy, Strategies, and Practices for Intellectual Property and Technology Cases, Third Edition (2025).
• Co-author, “Protecting Data in the MedTech Industry,” MedTech Intelligence (August 2019).

Molly has contributed to the following presentations:

• Speaker, “Combination Product IP Dilemmas: Understanding the Significance of Recent Drug Delivery and Device Patent Lawsuits,” American Conference Institute’s inaugural forum on Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation (USA), October 2025
• Speaker, “The Fate of the Therapeutic Dosing Regimen: Trends and Considerations in Validity Challenges to Dosing Patent Claims,” Goodwin Webinar, March 2024
• 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