Robert Frederickson III

Robert Frederickson, a partner in Goodwin’s Intellectual Property Litigation practice and co-chair of the firm’s Life Sciences Disputes sector, represents life sciences, technology and financial services companies in intellectual property litigation and complex commercial disputes. Robert is an experienced, first chair trial attorney, having tried numerous cases to juries, judges, and arbitrators across the country. He has won hundreds of millions of dollars in jury verdicts and arbitration awards in intellectual property and licensing matters, and has extensive experience defending life sciences and technology companies accused of intellectual property infringement and misappropriation.

Robert has broad experience representing a wide variety of both life sciences and technology companies — ranging from innovative biotechnology companies developing new classes of drugs to generic pharmaceutical companies seeking to bring affordable medication to the public, and from established hardware and software companies that built the Internet to emerging technology companies seeking to disrupt market incumbents. Robert also regularly works with Goodwin’s market-leading financial services practice to advise banks and financial services companies in IP matters and litigation, including as a member of the firm’s Fintech practice.

Robert also regularly advises life sciences, biotechnology, and technology companies on intellectual property matters outside of litigation. In this capacity, Robert advises life sciences and biotechnology companies faced with potential and actual IP disputes with partners, collaborators, suppliers, and vendors.

Robert has been recognized as a “Key Lawyer” for patent litigation by The Legal 500, in Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under Hot List 2021-2023, and as a top patent practitioner by IAM Patent 1000.

Robert’s representative cases include:

Representative Life Sciences and Pharmaceutical Experience:

• Trial counsel for Teva Pharmaceuticals in a three week jury trial against Eli Lilly, involving Teva’s innovative biologic AJOVY^®, for the preventive treatment of migraines. The jury awarded Teva over $175 million in lost profits and reasonably royalty damages.
• Trial counsel for a biotechnology company that developed and successfully brought-to-market a new class of drugs for the treatment of rare diseases in commercial arbitration involving multiple license and collaboration agreements. The week-long, full evidentiary hearing took place in June 2020, and was among the first remote trials after COVID-19 pandemic.
• Trial counsel in confidential, expedited commercial arbitration between innovative companies concerning a license agreement directed toward gene editing technology. Achieved favorable ruling ensuring exclusive license rights to foundational intellectual property.
• Trial counsel for Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories in a patent infringement case relating to buprenorphine/naloxone sublingual films (Suboxone^®). Secured a complete trial win in a first wave lawsuit involving five patents that was affirmed on appeal to the Federal Circuit. The second wave lawsuit settled favorably, with Dr. Reddy’s receiving $72 million from the plaintiff.
• Counsel for Teva Pharmaceuticals in widely publicized patent litigation involving the use of so-called “skinny labels” on pharmaceutical products. The case has received considerable industry attention and produced two oral arguments, two petitions for rehearing en banc, one sua sponte grant of panel rehearing, two panel opinions, and a denial of rehearing en banc that inspired three separate dissents.
• Authored successful motion for summary judgment of non-infringement in a patent infringement case involving test methods for low molecular weight heparins under 35 U.S.C. § 271(g). The district court’s ruling was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

Representative Technology and Financial Services Experience:

• Authored and argued summary judgment on behalf of Sophos, a network security company, in a case involving email firewalls in the District of Massachusetts. After granting summary judgment, the district court declared the case exceptional and awarded Sophos its attorneys’ fees. The Federal Circuit affirmed the summary judgment ruling. 
• Represented Esselte, a disruptive and innovative label printing company against the market incumbent in a case filed in the Southern District of New York, successfully defeating two motions for preliminary injunction. After an evidentiary hearing, the district court denied the first motion seeking to enjoin sales of Esselte’s next generation label printer. The second motion sought to enjoin Esselte’s participation in co-pending inter partes review proceedings. The case settled shortly after the second motion was denied.
• Obtained voluntarily dismissal with prejudice for Alcatel-Lucent after a favorable claim construction ruling in a patent infringement case involving Power-over-Ethernet switching products. After the dismissal, the United States District Court for the District of Delaware found the case “exceptional” under 35 U.S.C. § 285 and awarded Alcatel-Lucent’s attorneys’ fees. The Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the district court’s exceptional case finding.
• Represented a financial services company in complex Multi-District Litigation filed in the Western District of Pennsylvania, where the patentee alleged infringement of four patents involving mobile banking services and smart phone applications.
• Represented Cisco in a patent infringement case filed in the District of Delaware involving call admission control for voice over IP phone service. The district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in Cisco’s favor.
• Represented the inventors of prepaid cellular phone service in a large, multi-defendant patent infringement case involving prepaid cellular telephone service. The cases settled shortly before trial.

In 2018, Robert was selected by the firm to participate in LEAD Boston, a year-long program focused on leadership and social justice.

In addition to his trial work at Goodwin, from November 2011 to May 2012, Robert served as a Special Assistant District Attorney for Middlesex County. In that capacity, he prosecuted hundreds of felony and misdemeanor criminal cases and tried over a dozen jury and non-jury cases. He also argued countless dispositive and evidentiary motions, many of which involved constitutional issues.

Robert also devotes a significant amount of his time representing pro bono clients in a variety of matters. Robert has represented wrongfully convicted clients seeking exoneration through DNA testing through the New England Innocence Project (NEIP). He also has represented clients seeking asylum through the Political Asylum/Immigration Representation Project (PAIR).

Robert has spent considerable time representing pro bono clients in lawsuits relating to the opioid epidemic. In 2018, Robert, along with other Goodwin litigation attorneys, partnered with the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts in a series of lawsuits seeking to ensure that persons suffering from opioid use disorder are able to receive medically-assisted treatment while incarcerated in the Commonwealth’s jails and a prisons. The team successfully obtained the first court order ruling that blanket policies denying inmates suffering from opioid use disorder access to life-savings medications likely violated the Eighth Amendment and the American with Disabilities Act, in Pesce v. Coppinger, 355 F. Supp. 3d 35 (D. Mass. 2018). More recently, Robert leads a team of Goodwin attorneys who have partnered with Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts in a class action lawsuit challenging Massachusetts’ law that permits the involuntary civil-commitment of men, who have not been convicted or charged with any crime, to correctional institutions for treatment of alcohol and substance use disorder.

• Recognized by Benchmark Litigation as a Future Star (2024) 
• Recognized as a top patent practitioner by IAM Patent 1000 (2023) 
• Recognized for his work in patent litigation by The Best Lawyers in America (2023) 
• Recognized in Benchmark Litigation’s 40 & Under Hot List (2021-2023) 
• Recommended lawyer for patent litigation by The Legal 500 (2021-2023) 
• Named a “Rising Star” in Super Lawyers magazine, an award given to no more than 2.5% of eligible attorneys (2013–2022) 
• Recognized for Excellence in Pro Bono as part of Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly’s annual Excellence in the Law program (2020) 

• Speaker, “When Old Becomes New Again — Creating Value with New Discoveries Based on Known Compounds,” June 2022
• Co-Author, “No License, No Chips, No Problem: Ninth Circuit Delivers Qualcomm a Win in Antitrust Case Brought by the U.S. Federal Trade Commission,” August 2020
• Speaker, “5G and SEPs on Appeal: Insights from the FTC-Qualcomm Oral Argument,” Goodwin Webinar, February 2020
• Speaker, “Game of Phones: How Our Smartphones Are Pushing the Boundaries of Patent and Antitrust Law,” Goodwin Webinar, June 2019
• Co-Author, “Examining Octane Fitness Five Years On,” IPWatchdog, April 2019
• Speaker, “Unlocking the Value of Data in MedTech: Protections, Pitfalls, and Strategies,” Goodwin Webinar, March 2019
• Author, “Federal Circuit Declares Questions of Fact Prevent Early Resolution to Patents Directed Toward Abstract Ideas, Laws of Nature, and Natural Phenomenon,” June 2018
• Author, “District of Massachusetts Adopts New Local Patent Rules to Streamline Patent Litigation,” May 2018
• Speaker, “SAS NPE Forum 2018,” March 2018
• Co-Author, “Working Out With Octane Fitness: Four Years Later,” IPWatchdog, February 2018
• Co-Author, “TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC: Supreme Court Tightens Venue Rules for Patent Cases,” May 2017
• Co-Author, “Is The Eastern District of Texas’ Reign as the Busiest Patent Court in the Country About to End?” December 2016
• Speaker, “Patent Litigation Before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and in MDL Proceedings in 2015,” February 2015
• Author, “A Green Bird in the Hand: An Example of Environmental Regulations Operating to Stifle Environmentally Conscious Industry,” 34 B.C. Envtl. Aff. L. Rev. 303, 2007