Sterne Kessler Building Interior

Pauline M. Pelletier



Pauline M. Pelletier

Pauline M. Pelletier is a director in Sterne Kessler’s Trial & Appellate Practice Group. She is experienced in litigating intellectual property disputes in federal court, before the U.S. International Trade Commission, and in trials, interferences, and reexaminations before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. Pauline uses her background in bioinformatics to help clients develop patent portfolios and to provide intellectual property counseling focused on emerging and regulated markets, including for cannabinoid therapeutics.

In 2021 and 2020, Super Lawyers named Pauline a Washington, DC “Rising Star” in Intellectual Property. Pauline has been involved in all stages of litigation, from pre-suit strategy and injunction practice to trial, appeal, and settlement. She has represented clients in dozens of post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and related appeals. Pauline re-joined the firm after clerking for the Hon. Randall R. Rader, then Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit. She regularly represents clients in appeals before the Federal Circuit and provides appellate counseling. Pauline also has experience developing and litigating challenges to agency actions.

Pauline currently serves on Law360's 2022 IP Editorial Advisory Board and as a board member for the PTAB Bar Association. She is also a member of The Sedona Conference Working Group 5 on the Markman Process where she has contributed to dialogue on the interplay between claim construction and invalidity, in particular, subject matter ineligibility and indefiniteness. Pauline participates in the Giles S. Rich American Inn of Court, the PTAB Bar Association, and the Federal Circuit Bar Association.

Pauline is a co-author of Chapter 35 of the ABA’s Patent Litigation Strategies Handbook (4th Ed. 2015) published by Bloomberg BNA, which addresses post-grant challenges. She is a contributing author of Patent Office Litigation, Second Edition, published in 2017 by Thomson Reuters Westlaw. Pauline was a published articles editor for the Journal of Business and Technology Law, 8 J. Bus. & Tech. L. 451 (2013), and was awarded Best Appellant Brief in the Northeast Region at the 2012 Giles S. Rich Memorial Moot Court Competition.

Pauline received her J.D. with an Intellectual Property concentration, cum laude, from the University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law. She earned her M.S. in biotechnology and bioinformatics from The Johns Hopkins University, and her B.A., magna cum laude, also from The Johns Hopkins University where she was a Bloomberg Scholar and played NCAA tennis.

Technical Publications

  • Bronner L, Kazanzides P, Mashariki A, Domingo P, Pelletier P, Thomas T. Using an object-oriented paradigm to organize, manage and present scientific information for researchers. Proceedings of the American Society for Engineering Education (May 2006)
  • Ellerhorst JA, Naderi AA, Johnson MK, Pelletier P, Prieto VG, Diwan AH, Johnson MM, Gunn DC, Yekell S, Grimm EA. Expression of thyrotropin-releasing hormone by human melanoma and nevi. Clin. Cancer Res. 2004 Aug 15;10(16):5531-6, PMID: 15328193.



  • Super Lawyers, "Rising Star - Washington, DC" (2021-2020)
  • The Best Lawyers in America, "Ones to Watch" (2022-2021) 

Representative Matters

  • Allergan, Inc. and St. Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex., P.T.A.B., Fed. Cir.) (successfully represented Teva through trial and appeal in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving Restasis ophthalmic emulsion and in defeating sovereign immunity defense)
  • 3Shape A/S et al v. Align Technology, Inc., IPR2019-00150, -00151, and -00152 (P.T.A.B.) (successfully defended Align’s claims directed to 3D intraoral scanning, which were upheld as patentable in final written decisions)
  • Parsons Xtreme Golf LLC v. Taylor Made Golf Company (D. Ariz.) (successfully defeated motion for injunctive relief in favor of Taylor Made)
  • Genentech, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (D.N.J.) (represented defendant Sandoz in patent litigation under the BPCIA involving the biologic Rituxan)
  • Mayne Pharma v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC et al (D. Del.) (represented Actavis/Teva in Hatch-Waxman litigation relating to doxycycline)
  • Automated Tracking Solutions, LLC v. Awarepoint Corp. (E.D. Va.) (represented patentee in multi-case litigation relating to RFID technology)
  • ImmunoGen, Inc. v. Iancu (E.D. Va., Fed. Cir.) (representing ImmunoGen in Section 145 action involving antibody drug conjugate cancer treatments)
  • Phigenix v. ImmunoGen, Appeal No. 16-1544 (Fed. Cir.) (succeeded in having appeal from inter partes review dismissed for lack of standing)
  • Arunachalam v. SAP America, Appeal No. 15-1424 (Fed. Cir.) (succeeded in having appeal from CBM review dismissed on basis of collateral estoppel)
  • Luminara Worldwide LLC v. Iancu, Appeal No. 17-1629 (P.T.A.B., Fed. Cir.) (obtained reversal on appeal from inter partes review in case involving flameless candle technology developed by The Walt Disney Company)
  • Creative Spark, LLC v. Kingsford Products Company, Appeal No. 18-1957 (P.T.A.B., Fed. Cir.) (successfully defended Kingsford Products Company’s win in inter partes review on appeal in case involving charcoal briquettes)
  • AIP Acquisition LLC v. Level 3 Communications, LLC, Appeal No. 15-1286 (P.T.A.B., Fed. Cir.) (successfully defended petitioner Level 3’s win in inter partes review on appeal in case involving VoIP technology)
  • Netlist, Inc. v. SanDisk LLC, Appeal No. 16-2274 (P.T.A.B., Fed. Cir.) (successfully defended petitioner SanDisk’s win in inter partes review on appeal in case involving DRAM technology)
  • In re Intl. Business Machines Corp., Appeal No. 15-119 (P.T.A.B., Fed. Cir.) (successfully defended denial of inter partes review on mandamus)
  • 3Shape A/S et al v. Align Technology, Inc., IPR2020-00173 and IPR2019-00149 (P.T.A.B.) (successfully obtained denial of institution on the merits)
  • Norman Noble v. NuTech, IPR2013-00101 (P.T.A.B.) (successfully obtained denial of institution on patent relating to femtosecond laser technology)
  • Certain Lithium Ion Batteries, Battery Cells, Battery Modules, Battery Packs, Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1159 (I.T.C.) (represented third-party in defeating motion to compel and securing public interest exemption)
  • Certain Road Construction Machines & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1088 (I.T.C.) (successfully moved for summary determination of invalidity under Section 101, affirmed by the Commission, in favor of Wirtgen)
  • Certain Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1139 (I.T.C.) (represented complainant Juul Labs, Inc., who obtained remedial orders from the Commission in connection with its patented ENDS technology)
  • Certain Footwear Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-936 (I.T.C.) (represented respondent Tory Burch in action brought by Converse involving Chuck Taylor marks)

Thought Leadership

Past Events

Contact Information

Phone Number


Intellectual Property
University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law
cum laude
Biotechnology, Bioinformatics
The Johns Hopkins University
The Johns Hopkins University
Bloomberg Scholar, magna cum laude


District of Columbia
Supreme Court of the United States
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit


  • Giles S. Rich American Inn of Court
  • PTAB Bar Association
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • The Sedona Conference
  • Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program


  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit