Pauline M. Pelletier is a director in Sterne Kessler’s Trial & Appellate Practice Group. She is experienced in patent litigation before the federal courts and the International Trade Commission, post-grant trial and reexamination practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Pauline’s clients include leading companies in the electronics, biotechnology, and software industries. She also counsels clients in emerging and regulated industries, including cannabinoid therapeutics.
Pauline has used her technical background in bioinformatics to prepare and prosecute patent applications as well as represent clients in district court litigation, Section 337 actions, inter partes review, post-grant review, covered business method review, reexamination, and interference proceedings in a variety of technology areas. She has been involved in all stages of litigation, from pre-suit strategy and injunction practice through trial, appeal, and/or settlement. Pauline has also represented clients in dozens of post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and in related appeals.
Pauline re-joined the firm after clerking for the Hon. Randall R. Rader, then Chief Judge of the Federal Circuit. She has successfully briefed and argued appeals before the Federal Circuit and focuses on providing appellate counseling during all stages of a case, not just after appeal.
Pauline is a member of the Giles S. Rich American Inn of Court, the PTAB Bar Association, the Federal Circuit Bar Association, and the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program. She is also a member of The Sedona Conference Working Group 5 on the Markman Process where she has contributed to the dialogue on the interplay between claim construction and substantive invalidity, specifically subject matter ineligibility and indefiniteness.
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.
- 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.
- 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 defendant Teva through trial and appeal in litigation involving Restasis ophthalmic emulsion and in defeating sovereign immunity defense raised in related inter partes review proceedings)
- Parsons Xtreme Golf LLC v. Taylor Made Golf Company (D. Ariz.) (involved in defeating plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order)
- Genentech, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc. (D.N.J.) (represented defendant in BPCIA patent litigation involving the biologic Rituxan/rituximab)
- Mayne Pharma v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC et al (D. Del.) (counsel for Actavis and Teva in patent litigation relating to doxycycline dosage forms)
- Automated Tracking Solutions, LLC v. Awarepoint Corp. (E.D. Va.) (counsel for plaintiff in patent litigation relating to RFID technology)
- Phigenix v. ImmunoGen, Appeal No. 16-1544 (Fed. Cir.) (succeeded in having petitioner’s appeal from inter partes review dismissed for lack of Article III standing)
- Arunachalam v. SAP America, Appeal No. 15-1424 (Fed. Cir.) (succeeded in having appeal from covered business method review dismissed on basis of collateral estoppel)
- Luminara Worldwide LLC v. Iancu, Appeal No. 17-1629 (P.T.A.B., Fed. Cir.) (obtained rare reversal for patent owner on appeal from inter partes review)
- Creative Spark, LLC v. Kingsford Products Company, Appeal No. 18-1957 (Fed. Cir.) (successfully defended petitioner’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.) (secured and defended petitioner’s win in inter partes review through appeal in case involving VoIP technology)
- Netlist, Inc. v. SanDisk LLC, Appeal No. 16-2274 (P.T.A.B., Fed. Cir.) (secured and defended petitioner’s win in inter partes review through appeal in case involving DRAM technology)
- In re Intl. Business Machines Corp., Appeal No. 15-119 (P.T.A.B., Fed. Cir.) (secured and defended denial of institution in inter partes review on mandamus review)
- Norman Noble v. NuTech (P.T.A.B.) (successfully obtained denial of institution in inter partes review on patent relating to laser technology for producing nanoparticles)
- Certain Footwear Products, Inv. No. 337-TA-936 (I.T.C.) (represented respondent Tory Burch in action brought by Converse involving Chuck Taylor intellectual property)
- Certain Road Construction Machines & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1088 (I.T.C.) (representing respondents in patent action relating to paving machine technology)
- Certain Road Milling Machines & Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1067 (I.T.C.) (representing complainant in a patent action relating to road-milling machine technology)
- Certain Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1139 (I.T.C.) (representing complainant in patent action relating to ENDS technology)
- 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