Recent Posts in ‘Intellectual Property’« Older Entries
When: Monday, January 28 to Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Where: The Carlton on Madison, New York, NY, USA
For more information, and to register: click here
What People said about last year’s event
- “The presenters were informative and knowledgeable. The content was great and the slide content of each presenter was detailed and specific.” – Michelle Johnson-Lewis, Regulatory Counsel, Celgene Corporation
- “Good overview of EU requirements and problem areas.” – Carolyn Jones, Director of Regulatory Strategy, Biogen Idec
- “I thought this was one of the best in a very long time – great depth of issues, knowledgeable presentations.” – James M. Wood, Partner, Reed Smith LLP
Industry related article from Reuters.com posted on 12/18/12, in London:
UK may reject Roche’s Avastin for advanced ovarian cancer
Britain’s healthcare cost-effectiveness watchdog said it may reject Roche Holding AG’s drug Avastin for treating advanced ovarian cancer in combination with two standard chemotherapy drugs.
In the latest of a series of setbacks for the medicine, the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) said Avastin used with chemotherapy drugs paclitaxel and carboplatin is not a cost-effective treatment for the government-funded National Health Service (NHS).
NICE said the drug costs around 2,500 pounds ($4,000) a month per patient.
Ovarian cancer is the fifth most common cancer in women in the UK and in 2009, the latest year for which data are available, there were nearly 7,000 new cases diagnosed in the country.
NICE rejected Avastin as a first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer in July. This was after drug regulators in the United States came to the same conclusion in 2011.
The watchdog will make a final decision on treating ovarian cancer with the drug, also known as bevacizumab, next year. Its latest guidance could change after feedback from a public consultation that runs to Jan. 22, during which Roche could appeal.
In the meantime, NICE chief executive Andrew Dillon said that although the combination did appear to delay the spread of ovarian cancer in some patients, it was unclear whether it helped patients live longer overall.
“There was no evidence to show that the clinical benefit of the treatment justifies its cost, when compared to existing treatments – an important factor to consider, especially as the NHS has finite resources,” Dillon said in a statement.
Roche said it was disappointed but would work with NICE to win the regulator’s backing.
“Avastin is the first drug for 15 years that has been shown to improve outcomes for women with advanced ovarian cancer, and can halt the progression of the disease for up to six months compared to chemotherapy alone,” the company said.
Roche noted the drug was approved by the European Medicines Agency for treating advanced ovarian cancer in combination with standard chemotherapy in December 2011.
Until the final decision, NICE said the NHS should make decisions locally on funding the treatment but if the final decision goes against Roche, hospitals will not be able to use core NHS funds for the treatment.
Expert Article by Suzannah K. Sundby and Eric P. Mirabel
You may have heard about the “breast cancer gene patent wars.” Most likely, you have heard from various individuals and popular media asking “how can someone patent my genes?” One can’t and never could patent your genes as they are in you.
One side in the “gene patent war” has nevertheless convinced the Supreme Court to weigh in on the issue of whether DNA sequences derived from the human genome are patentable, in Association for Molecular Pathology (AMP) v. Myriad Genetics, while disingenuously labeling the patents at issue as “human gene patents.”
Myriad (the “other” side) owns several patents with claims directed to “isolated” nucleic acid molecules (e.g., DNA) and fragments thereof which are referred to as either “probes” or “primers,” based on their function. Probes anneal, i.e., bind, to a particular part of a DNA and are used to detect the presence of certain genes which indicate abnormalities or disease states. Primers anneal to particular parts of a DNA and are used to make additional pieces of DNA, e.g., make multiple copies of a single abnormal sequence such that it is readily detectable and/or become capable of being utilized in other useful applications, e.g. forensic science.
Following the well-established Patent Law principle that natural products are not patentable, since the dawn of biotechnology in the 1980’s, in order for claims to DNA to be patent eligible, the DNA must be “isolated” or synthesized or modified such that the claimed DNA is not as it is found in nature. In other words, no DNA patent claim encompasses a gene as it exists in you.
The Biotech Industry was founded upon patent protection for isolated DNA and similar products, which enabled small start-up companies to compete with established Big Pharma. By now, the Biotech Industry employs millions each year, and more importantly provides life-saving technologies.
In the United States, we enjoy patent rights that are stronger than patent rights elsewhere in the world and because of the strength of US patent rights, many industries, including the Biotech Industry, thrive in the US. In fact, the US Biotech Industry has become orders of magnitude larger – and concomitantly more productive and employs more individuals– than that in all of Europe, or any other country/region. Changing the principles of our patent system to exclude patent protection for isolated DNA will likely cause a ripple effect with detrimental consequences on our economy and American interests.
As the public relations prong of their attack in the war, in AMP v. Myriad, AMP and other petitioners have disseminated additional highly inflammatory untruths, including: that isolated DNA is simply a product of nature, patents prevent further research and development, and that such isolated DNA patents prevent access to personalized medicine and care.
Let’s set the record straight.
Personalized medicine is based on the principle that medical treatments can and should be tailored to an individual according to the individual’s biochemical and genetic makeup that is often different from the majority of those afflicted. This necessarily means researching and developing a variety of treatments for a plurality of small subsets of the population. No company is going to spend the millions and billions of dollars required to conduct the R&D and obtain FDA approval for such a small subset when, without patent protection (for limited times), that company is unlikely to recoup the millions and billions spent.
A correlation between orphan diseases and drugs can be drawn to personalized medicine and treatments based on genetic diagnostic tests. Rare diseases are diseases which affect a small percentage of the population, i.e. about 1 in 1,500 people in the US. The term “Orphan Disease” is often used to refer to a rare disease because of the lack of available treatments and medicines. The lack of available treatments and medicines for such Orphan Diseases is the result of the fact that only a small percentage of the population is afflicted and, as such, companies (without Government incentives) are unlikely able to recoup the costs of bring the treatments and medicines to the public and keeping them available to the public. Many Orphan Diseases have known etiologies and known treatments, but the drugs and medicines are not available to the public because of the costs involved in the FDA approval process and commercialization.
Thus, Congress enacted the 1983 Orphan Drug Act which provides various incentives, including exclusivity periods and monetary incentives in the form of grants and discounts on various FDA approval and user fees. Because of these incentives, companies have found it economically viable to risk millions of dollars in R&D with the hope of bringing treatments, medicines, and even cures to small populations afflicted with a rare disease.
Personalized medicine will likely go the way of treatments and medicines for orphan diseases prior to the 1983 Orphan Drug Act, if patent protection for isolated DNA, biomarkers, genetic assays, and treatments in view of such isolated DNA, biomarkers and genetic assays becomes unavailable. Although academia may still continue such research, who is going to spend, more appropriately, risk millions to conduct the additional R&D to take that basic research and make a product available to the public so that one can have medical treatment that is personalized for that person?
With the current budget constraints on our Federal government, it’s not likely that we’ll see additional Federal research grants for universities to conduct the basic research that results in potential products, e.g., diagnostic tests, which are essential for personalized medicine. Additionally, it is not likely that Congress will allocate additional money and resources for setting up incentives, e.g., grants, user fee discounts, and limited exclusivity periods (like that provided for orphan drugs), for companies to run the last 20 yards to bring such basic research to publicly available products that benefit an afflicted minority.
Thus, without patent protection for Biotech inventions, no one would be willing to make the substantial investment required to research, develop and bring such small-market products through the multi-year FDA approval process. So, no patents for isolated DNA and diagnostics means “one size fits all” as the investment in R&D will only be made for what can be sold for the masses. Say “goodbye” to personalized medicine.
The opponents in AMP v. Myriad Genetics have proposed, however, that Biotech patents inhibit the development of and access to personalized medicine, because universities and other institutions are prevented from doing their own research and testing. This argument ignores that even if a drug or treatment is available, if the necessary investment has not been made to receive FDA approval, the payors in the system (Medicare, Medicaid and medical insurance companies) will not reimburse for it. Thus, without patents to enable one to recoup the costly R&D for FDA approval, public availability of newer and better treatment options for various diseases, including cancer, would likely be much more severely limited as a result.
With regard to breast cancer, most women facing the gut-wrenching decision of whether to have a mastectomy want to know whether they have the breast cancer gene in order to make an educated decision about getting a mastectomy. Without the research and innovation driven by patents, it is unlikely breast cancer gene diagnostics would be available today. In other words, patents give rise to the innovation that results in the creation of such diagnostics and treatment options based thereon, but access thereto is a question of whether or not insurance will pay for it.
One should note that many insurance plans cover prophylactic mastectomies as a medical necessity where one has a family history of breast cancer or has the breast cancer gene mutation as evidenced by a genetic diagnostic test (which is also covered by many insurance plans). However, many individuals do not have a family medical history. Thus, without the breast cancer gene diagnostics at issue in the breast cancer gene wars, prophylactic mastectomies would not likely be available to many as a reimbursable medical expense.
As for patents inhibiting further research and development, the history of the US Biotech Industry and of virtually every other American industry of significance (i.e., those industries where companies hold large numbers of patents), suggests exactly the opposite. Our Founding Fathers were wise enough to understand that patent protection promotes innovation, and they delegated regulation of the patent system exclusively to Congress, in the Constitution. Throughout the years, our Congress has been equally wise and enacted laws that put limitations on patent rights so as to promote further innovation. And US Courts have, until recently, been wise enough to sufficiently reward the innovators without stagnating further innovation.
Patent protection is for a limited time. After the patent term, the invention is dedicated to the public, i.e., anyone can make, use, or sell it freely. Moreover, even before patent issuance, most US patent applications are published, and all patents are published and available following issuance. Thus, anyone can view the patent (or published application) and use it to design around and/or invent a better design, and that person can be rewarded by his inventive efforts with a patent of his own.
With regard to medicines and diagnostic patents, activities which are related to the development and submission of information to the FDA are excluded from being acts of patent infringement. This means that despite one’s patent rights, another can perform the R&D to bring better products, such as medicines and diagnostics, through the approval process and to the public. In short, patents promote further R&D.
It seems that everyone wants something for free. But if everything is free, there will be nothing to be had. Without the incentives of our patent system, it is quite unlikely that the breast cancer diagnostic test at issue in AMP v. Myriad Genetics would be publicly available today. If needed tests or medications are too costly to allow wide access, it seems the cost should be borne without crashing the engine of American innovation.
ACI event related to this topic
When: Tuesday, March 05 to Wednesday, March 06, 2013
Where: Millennium Knickerbocker, Chicago, IL, USA
For more information, and to register: click here
Suzannah K. Sundby is a Partner in the Intellectual Property Practice of Smith, Gambrell & Russell, LLP. Ms. Sundby has extensive experience in patent preparation and prosecution of inventions across diverse technologies including biochemistry, molecular biology, pharmaceuticals, microfluidics, diagnostics, medical devices and nanotechnology. Her legal practice involves patent preparation and prosecution, licensing, opinion work, client counseling and litigation. Ms. Sundby has experience assisting start-up biotech companies with the preparation and prosecution of their foundation patents, nondisclosure agreements and related IP issues. Ms. Sundby taught advanced biotech patent preparation and prosecution as an Adjunct Professor at Franklin Pierce Law Center. Before entering the legal field, Ms. Sundby helped map the Drosophila genome as a member of the University of California’s Berkeley Drosophila Genome Group. Ms. Sundby holds a B.S. in Biochemistry/Molecular Biology and, in addition to earning a Juris Doctor, she earned a Master of Intellectual Property.
- NO ONE IS PATENTING YOUR GENES: The Ripple Effect if Isolated DNA Claims Are Made Patent Ineligible (December 17, 2012)
Contact Suzannah K. Sundby
1130 Connecticut Avenue, NW, Suite 1130
Washington, DC 20036
Phone: (202) 263-4332
Fax: (202) 263-4352
Article from Fdalawyersblog.com, by Brian Malkin (Frommer Lawrence & Haug) posted on 11/30/12:
Orphan Drugs and Rare Diseases Spotlighted at New ACI Conference
On November 28-29, 2012, the American Conference Institute (“ACI”) held in Boston, Massachusetts, its inaugural conference: “Orphan Drugs and Rare Diseases: Maximizing Opportunities and Overcoming Stumbling Blocks in the Designation and Development Process“. The Conference was well attended and featured a pre-conference boot camp on the Orphan Drug Act as well as a post-conference master class on overcoming clinical trial challenges and proving the safety and efficacy for orphan drugs.
One highlight of the conference was Timothy R. Cote, M.D., M.P.H., Principal, Cote Orphan Consulting (Director of FDA’s Office of Orphan Drug Products Development (2007-2011)). Cote provided a back drop for how the Orphan Drug Act came about, emphasizing that while for each individual disease the afflicted patient population is small, when all of the orphan diseases are pooled together, actually the population is sizable and a rapidly-growing area. Dr. Cote described orphan drug development as a “high touch” field where the need for new therapies are often driven by families with afflicted members and typical “big pharma” strategies are less effective. Calling it “scrappy not crappy” science, Cote explained that unlike big pharma projects that involve thousands of patients and hundreds of millions of dollars to develop new therapies, orphan drugs often can be developed for under $10 million–in part because there are so few patients who are candidates for clinical studies and treatment. Cote said while approximately 60% of orphan drug designation requests are approved, the success stories are the products that obtain new drug application approval and win the highly-coveted seven-year exclusivity for the first orphan indication (“a horse race”). More importantly, the basic research required to find cures for orphan drugs often provides valuable medical knowledge in how our bodies work, which he called “pharma karma.”
Another highlight of the conference was Christopher-Paul Milne, D.V.M., M.P.H., J.D., Associate Director, Tufts Center for the Study of Drug Development, Tufts University. Milne said that while the initial orphan market was thought of as relatively small, there are often higher rates of return than more “mainstream” diseases, particularly for diseases with more options for treatment. One phenomena that he tracked was the “ultra orphans,” where the orphan population for treatment, which is restricted to less than 200,000 when applied for orphan drug designation in the United States, can get closer to the 200,000 number, and sometimes can expand to more mainstream numbers, if the therapy is later found to have non-orphan treatment options. While certain disease areas such as various cancers have good orphan drug representation, other therapeutic areas, such as neurology, have had less success stories, Milne reported. Milne added that amidst the tension of competition versus collaboration, it has often been important for unlikely partners to work together, with the help and motivation of patient groups, such as the National Organization for Rare Diseases (“NORD”).
The Conference also featured panel presentations on developing successful orphan drug partnerships, comparisons of the orphan drug frameworks around the world, mastering the intricacies of the orphan drug designation process, and life cycle management of orphan drugs status and liability considerations from a variety of in-house counsel, outside counsel, academics and both regulatory and financial consultants and patient advocates. Some key take away messages were that as orphan drug products continue to provide a greater promise for return, despite the lower patient numbers, more entrants into this area are expected in coming years.
This contributor’s presentation, which was part of the “Mastering the Intricacies of the Orphan Drug Designation Process: A Step-by-Step Guide to Navigating the Pathway” (co-presented with Alan G. Minsk, Partner, Arnall Golden Gregory LLP), is available here.
Dr.Christopher Milne discusses reasons big pharma investing in orphan drugs
When: Wednesday, November 28 to Thursday, November 29, 2012
Where: Hyatt Regency, Boston, MA, USA
For more information, and to register: click here
Industry related article from Forbes.com, by Sally Pipes, posted on 10/29/12:
To Cure Rare Diseases, Unleash Orphan Drug Innovations
Last month, the City of Pittsburgh hosted the 35th annual Great Race, a charity run that raises money for the Richard S. Caliguiri Amyloidosis Research Fund. Caliguiri, a former Pittsburgh mayor, died of this rare protein disorder, and a portion of the race proceeds are used to help find a cure.
It should have been an uplifting event. Yet the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette reported that “[d]espite the rally of support . . . the research fund created in [Caliguiri's] name has had little impact on the effort to find a cure.”
Those familiar with the challenges of treating rare conditions like amyloidosis won’t be surprised by this news. The sad truth is that the economic incentives for developing life-saving treatments for rare disorders are less than optimal.
But that doesn’t mean that we’re powerless to fight rare diseases. Policymakers can dramatically improve incentives for researchers and biopharmaceutical firms to create drugs that treat rare conditions — treatments known as “orphan drugs.” And they should. Rare diseases collectively represent a major public-health threat.
Rare diseases — conditions like Huntington disease and Burkitt lymphoma afflict fewer than 200,000 people — cost Americans more than $474 billion a year.
Over 7 percent of Americans — or more than 25 million people — suffer from the roughly 7,000 illnesses that fall into this category.
So the overall market for treatments for rare diseases is large. Indeed, total global spending on orphan drugs runs between $50 billion and $85 billion — or between 5.7 percent and 9.7 percent of what the world spends on pharmaceuticals, according to “A Primer on the Orphan Drug Market: Addressing the Needs of Patients with Rare Diseases,” a new paper by economist Dr. Wayne Winegarden, senior fellow at the Pacific Research Institute.
But the potential number of beneficiaries for each individual orphan treatment is relatively small. A narrow market of potential buyers can make investing in orphan drugs perilous.
Part of the problem is that developing a treatment for any illness is a long and expensive process. It takes anywhere from 10 to 15 years to usher a treatment from the research phase, through the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval process, and into patients’ hands.
At every step of the process, drug firms must spend more money — and face the distinct possibility that their research will fail. According to the best estimates, a single successful drug costs well over $1 billion to develop.
And once a drug goes generic, the firm that created the medicine must deal with fierce competition from other manufacturers.
It’s hardly surprising, then, that pharmaceutical firms tend to bet on treatments that will be useful to the largest number of patients. This state of affairs often leaves those suffering from rare diseases with few treatment options.
Fortunately, policymakers have found ways to improve the incentives for pharmaceutical firms to invest in orphan drug research.
Consider the Orphan Drug Act, passed in 1983. It provided drug developers seven years of market exclusivity for their inventions, ensuring that they would have a reasonable amount of time in which to make back their hefty investment, free of competition from other pharmaceutical firms.
The law also lessened the economic burden of drug development by offering a 50-percent tax credit for the costs incurred during the clinical trial phase. On top of that, the Act waived the fees associated with applying for FDA approval.
The results? In the past decade, the number of new drugs — or New Molecular Entities (NME), as they are called in the trade — released in the United States for the treatment of rare diseases has increased dramatically. In fact, more new NMEs were launched in 2011 than in any of the last ten years.
This is encouraging evidence that those who suffer from rare illnesses shouldn’t give up hope.
It’s now up to our leaders to find new ways to lower the barriers to developing these valuable treatments. They should start by taking the Orphan Drug Act — already over a quarter-century old — and using it as a model.
Drug companies should be rewarded for developing orphan drugs. It’s the only way to guarantee that, no matter how uncommon an illness, there will be somebody, somewhere working to find a cure for it.
When: Tuesday, November 13 to Wednesday, November 14, 2012
Where: Sutton Place Hotel, Chicago, IL, USA
Smooth sailing is never a given when entering any sort of agreement. Due diligence, cautious partner selection, and carefully crafted license terms are employed as a shield against the dreaded L-word: Litigation.
But fighting does not have to mean failure. Ask the panelists of ACI’s Medical Device Licensing “Fixing Agreements Gone Wrong: Tales from the School of Hard Knocks“
- Peter D. Weinstein, Ph.D., J.D., Chief Executive Officer, ONE3 IP MANAGEMENT
- Trevor K. Copeland, Shareholder, Brinks Hofer Gilson & Lione
- Andres Liivak, Partner, Kaye Scholer LLP
In addition, speakers from over 20 leading companies will present techniques for:
- Deciding when you need to renegotiate if litigation affects the patent
- Addressing the need for an exit strategy with termination clauses
- Keeping each party’s IP protected and separate while allocating indemnity and product liability
- Providing for future dispute resolution while goodwill is strong
- Negotiating dispute resolution clauses to your advantage
These experts have been through agreements that fell apart, picked up the pieces, and moved forward to better, more successful deals for having sloughed through the mess. They have the benefit of hindsight on terms and situations that lead to litigation – and will be in Chicago on November 12-13 for you to benefit from their hard won wisdom.
When: Monday, October 29 to Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Where: Hilton San Francisco Financial District, San Francisco, CA, USA
For the first time at this event, learn how your peers are addressing are addressing the quickly evolving issue of injunctive relief involving standards essential during the Focus on FRAND session featuring insights from:
Vice President & Legal Counsel, Qualcomm
General Manager, Standards Strategy, Microsoft
Program Director of Standards and IPR, Intel
Participate in the discussion as John, Amy and Earl address:
- The public interest factors that the ITC should consider when determining whether to issue exclusionary relief in connection with a SEP that is subject to a FRAND commitment?
- Whether or not FRAND-compliant offers can/should impact the ITC’s issuance of traditional injunctive relief/exclusionary remedies
- Whether the ITC should grant a stay of delay of entry of an exclusion order in an investigation involving a standards essential patent pending review by the Federal Circuit
- How the ITC treats standards essential patents vs. other jurisdictions (US federal district court and international venues)
Don’t miss this opportunity to hear directly from the ITC Bench as they share their insights on:
- Multi-Jurisdictional IP Litigation
- eDiscovery: Thoughts and Recommendations for Practitioners on How to Streamline the Process
- Claim Construction and the Markman Hearing
- How to Obtain Approval of Your Settlement Proposal
Also, benefit from the following NEW case study and panel sessions:
- ITC – Federal Circuit Interface – addressingthe appellate dichotomy
- The Reverse Case Phenomenon – perspectives on cross party investigations in 337 actions
- Revisiting Beloit – inside the Wind Turbines case and the right to judicial review
- ITC Case Law Year in Review – inside the Year’s Top 10 ITC Cases
- From the Engineer to the CEO – how to select and prep fact and expert witnesses
Gain strategic information that will aid you in your practice during the Interactive Working Group Sessions on:
A – Enforcement of ITC Exclusion Orders at Customs
B – e-Discovery – Cost Effective Strategies for Successful Fact Finding
When: Wednesday, October 10 to Thursday, October 11, 2012
Where: New York Marriott Downtown, New York, NY, USA
Over 3000 patent professionals representing both branded and generic manufacturers have learned why ACI’s Maximizing Pharmaceutical Patent Life Cycles Conference is the original and best drug life cycle management conference in the U.S. This year’s iteration will without a doubt continue the event’s long tradition of excellence in educating top professionals on the details of this complex but vital aspect of effective patent portfolio management. Featuring government officials from the USPTO, FDA, and FTC, our faculty will share best practices for:
- Understanding how the patent cliff will impact innovation and R&D, and alter the industry dynamic between brand names and generics
- Preparing for how the recently issued FDA regulations on biosimilars and the further implementation of BPCIA will affect pharmaceutical patent life cycle management strategies
- Assessing how the combined evolution of prior art obvious and obvious-type double patenting are influencing the future of secondary patents
- Evaluating patent life cycle strategies relative to personalized medicine vis-à-vis section 101 patentability post-Prometheus
- Examining the impact of REMS studies on generic entry
- Deciphering the relationship between use code controversies and inducement and divided infringement actions relative to Orange Book listings post-Caraco
- Exploring forfeiture rulings post-Lipitor
- Navigating new safe harbor dilemmas for both general screening and research tool patents
ADDED LEARNING VALUE
We are also pleased to offer the in-depth and practical training and strategy sessions that will address the essential and emerging focus of pharmaceutical patent life cycle management:
- Working Group Session: Assessing the Impact of New PTO Procedures Under the AIA on Hatch-Waxman Strategies Relative to Patent Life Cycle Management will offer in-depth and pragmatic advice for navigating the PTO’s new post-grant review and inter partes review proceedings, and much more.
- PTA- PTE Boot Camp: Basic Training in the Essentials of Patent Term Adjustment and Patent Term Restoration for Patent Lawyers Serving the Biopharmaceutical Industry will offer critical instruction on the fundamentals and mechanics of PTA and PTE practice which help to ensure patent and profit longevity
With a track record of attracting top counsel and business development executives from both branded and generic drug manufacturers, this event is a prime networking opportunity. Past iterations of have sold out – visit the conference home page, learn more about our exciting faculty of in-house, private practice, and government experts, and reserve your spot today!
Just as the plumbing system in your house fills your bathtub and runs your shower, why shouldn’t the same Distributed Antenna System (DAS) be used to support commercial cellular and public safety radio service?
That’s the challenge attendees heard earlier today in the “Establishing Universal Indoor Public Safety Radio Coverage” session at ACI’s 5th Annual DAS Congress.
And it’s the thesis of the Safer Buildings Coalition – a non-profit founded by SOLiD that seeks to ensure that public safety radio services be made available anywhere cellular signals are delivered through a DAS.
Here are some highlights from the presentation:
Doug Hinson is the leader of the firm’s ERISA Litigation Group. He has led
the defense of numerous Fortune 500, government, private and non-profit
clients in all types of ERISA class actions, including 401(k) fee and
employer stock matters, welfare benefit terminations, defined benefit
calculation and anti-cutback actions, and severance matters. In addition,
Mr. Hinson has substantial experience and expertise in securities, complex
commercial and insurance class action litigation. Mr. Hinson’s practice is
national in scope. He has been recognized as a “national leader” in ERISA
litigation by Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business,
Best Lawyers in America and The Legal 500 publications, and is listed in
Who’s Who in American Law and Super Lawyers magazine. Mr. Hinson is
the chair of the Employee Benefits Committee of the Tort, Trial and
Insurance Practice Section—and a member of the Joint Committee on
Employee Benefits—of the American Bar Association.
Contact H. Douglas Hinson
Alston & Bird LLP
One Atlantic Center
1201 West Peachtree Street
Atlanta, GA 30309-3424