Alexandra D. Valenti

Alexandra Valenti, a partner in Goodwin’s Intellectual Property Litigation practice, is a member of the firm’s Life Sciences Disputes group and focuses her practice on patent matters across a variety of industries, including pharmaceuticals, biotech, consumer products, and software. Recognized in Benchmark Litigation’s “40 & Under Hot List” and by the IAM Patent 1000 and Managing IP, Alexandra has represented clients in numerous patent infringement lawsuits in federal courts nationwide, including significant victories after trial and on appeal. Alexandra also represents clients in intellectual property matters outside of district court litigation, and has extensive experience in arbitrations arising from intellectual property licensing and related commercial agreements.

Alexandra has experience representing clients in all stages of patent litigation, from pre-suit investigation through trial and appeal.

Representative Life Sciences and Pharmaceuticals Experience

• Represented Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories in litigation concerning its generic equivalent to Suboxone®, a product used to treat opioid use disorder. After the district court granted a preliminary injunction halting its generic sales, Dr. Reddy’s successfully appealed to the Federal Circuit, allowing it to continue sales of its product. Alexandra also represented Dr. Reddy’s in a related inter partes review in which the PTAB invalidated as anticipated all but one of the challenged claims—a decision that was later affirmed by the Federal Circuit. The team also successfully added counterclaims for violation of US antitrust laws that survived multiple motions to dismiss. The matter settled favorably before trial
• Represented Actavis Laboratories in a trial victory over Tris Pharma in Delaware federal court in a case relating to Actavis’s generic version of Quillivant XR® (methylphenidate hydrochloride)
• Represented Teva in a patent infringement action filed by Otsuka relating to Teva’s filing of abbreviated new drug applications for generic versions of Otsuka’s drug Abilify® (aripiprazole). Teva defeated a motion for a temporary restraining order, allowing Teva to launch its products. The case against Teva settled favorably before trial

Representative Technology Experience

• Represented Continental Automotive Systems in patent litigation concerning brake control systems and methods. The matter settled favorably at the pleadings stage
• Defended IBM as a third-party defendant in patent infringement suits before the United States Court of Federal Claims, filed against the federal government, regarding computer systems and methods for broadcasting disaster warnings
• Represented The Gillette Company in litigation filed against Dollar Shave Club, Inc., in which Gillette asserted infringement of a patent directed to razor blade coatings. The matter settled favorably before trial

Outside of district court litigation, Alexandra also has extensive experience representing technology and life sciences companies in disputes arising under patent licenses and joint development agreements. In this context, she advises clients on the intersection of intellectual property and commercial issues, and has successfully represented clients in international arbitrations concerning such matters. Recently, Alexandra represented Zealand Pharma A/S, a biotechnology research company, in an ICC arbitration concerning the company’s right to milestone and royalty payments for a peptide therapeutic under a licensing and collaboration agreement. The matter was resolved with a mutually acceptable settlement.

Pro Bono

Alexandra has an active pro bono practice. Alexandra worked with the ACLU of Massachusetts (ACLUM) to challenge the application of a Massachusetts state prison policy to firm pro bono client, Geoffrey Pesce. The policy categorically denied opioid agonist treatment to inmates who, like Geoffrey, suffer from opioid use disorder (OUD). Alexandra successfully argued a motion for preliminary injunction, which ensured that Geoffrey would have continued access to his physician-prescribed methadone treatment for OUD during a short incarceration. In its decision granting the motion, the Massachusetts federal court found that Geoffrey was likely to prevail on both his claims under the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Eighth Amendment because the prison policy implies a “pretext for some discriminatory motive” and would deviate from the standard of care by “ignoring treatment prescriptions given to Geoffrey by his doctors.” In a later ruling awarding Goodwin and ACLUM attorneys’ fees, the court described the case as “involving constitutional issues of broad concern to the treatment of drug addiction in correctional facilities.” Alexandra has since successfully represented numerous clients in similar matters, all of which have resulted in settlements requiring that treatment be provided throughout the clients’ incarceration.

Alexandra also led a team that submitted an amicus brief to the Supreme Court of Ohio on behalf of the Joyful Heart Foundation, an organization committed to healing, education, and advocacy on behalf of victims of sexual assault. The court agreed with the positions taken by Joyful Heart in its brief, and overturned a decision dismissing rape and kidnapping charges against an alleged serial rapist based on pre-indictment delay.

In 2016, Alexandra gained significant trial experience during a six-month secondment with the Kings County (Brooklyn) District Attorney’s Office, where she served as an assistant district attorney. During this time, she prosecuted numerous felony cases on behalf of the state of New York, including a bench trial, a jury trial, and several hearings. In other work with the Kings County District Attorney’s Office, Alexandra successfully briefed and argued an appeal before the New York Supreme Court Appellate Division, Second Judicial Department, ensuring a criminal defendant convicted of robbery remained in prison.

Alexandra is a member of the Honorable William C. Conner Inn of Court and the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA).

Prior to law school, Alexandra was a legislative aide for former Representative Peter T. King (NY) in the US House of Representatives.

Alexandra has been recognized for excellence in patent litigation by the IAM Patent 1000. IAM described her as “[g]rowing in stature and supremely confident in her trial skills,” noting that she “isn’t afraid of litigating outside her pharmaceutical stronghold and makes a significant contribution to [Goodwin’s] non-life sciences practice.” Most recently, IAM reported that Alexandra is “turning heads as an up and comer,” garnering “excellent references” including that “[s]he demonstrates mastery of the facts of her cases and delivers successful strategies, while running everything to the highest professional standards” and that “[s]he is extremely polished and a superb litigator.”

Alexandra was recognized as a Rising Star (2019, 2021) and a Notable Practitioner (2021) by Managing IP.

Alexandra was a 2021 recommended lawyer for Patent litigation: full coverage by The Legal 500.

Alexandra was recognized in Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under Hot List 2021 and 2022.

Alexandra regularly publishes and lectures on current issues in the intellectual property field. In particular, Alexandra is a recognized thought leader on intellectual property matters pertaining to the development and commercialization of biosimilar products. As part of her work on biosimilars, Alexandra is an editor of the firm’s blog, Big Molecule Watch, which provides resources and observations through Goodwin’s active watch of legal, business, and regulatory developments related to biologics, biosimilars, and the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). Alexandra was also a Senior Editor and Contributor to Goodwin’s “Guide to Biosimilars Litigation and Regulation in the U.S., 2019-2020 ed.,” published by Thomson Reuters as well as Goodwin's "Guide to Biosimilars Litigation and Regulation in the U.S., 2022-2023 ed." Alexandra recently Co-Authored an article titled “3 Reasons Beauty Cos. Should Consider Pursuing Patents,” which was featured in the expert analysis section of the website Law360.