Alexandra D. Valenti

Alexandra has experience representing clients in all stages of litigation and arbitration, from investigation through hearings, trial, and appeal. Her representations include:

• Insulet v. EOFlow: As part of the lead trial team, Alexandra secured a landmark jury verdict for Insulet Corporation in a trade secret and patent case against EOFlow, its CEO, Nephria Bio, and three former Insulet executives. The five-week jury trial featured 27 live witnesses and over 330 exhibits. Alexandra examined seven witnesses, including Insulet’s Chief Product Officer, Insulet’s Chief Information Officer, one of the former Insulet executive defendants, and several experts on key disputed issues. The jury found that EOFlow and its CEO willfully misappropriated four Insulet trade secrets, awarding $452 million total compensatory and punitive damages—one of the top trade secret verdicts in the last five years.
• Mrinalini v. Valentino: Alexandra serves as lead U.S. counsel representing the fashion house Valentino in defense of claims brought by one of its former textile suppliers, Mrinalini Inc., for copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and other related claims. Valentino won an early motion to compel arbitration, staying the district court litigation. Meanwhile, Valentino, represented by both Italian counsel and Goodwin lawyers, had filed a request for arbitration before the Chamber of Arbitration of Milan. Shortly after the court entered the stay pending arbitration, the arbitrator issued an award in Valentino’s favor. Thereafter, Valentino filed a separate U.S. action to enforce the award, which the district court granted and the Second Circuit affirmed. Further proceedings remain pending.
• Indivior v. Dr. Reddy’s: Alexandra was a senior member of a team representing Dr. Reddy’s in litigation concerning its generic equivalent to Suboxone®. Suboxone® contains buprenorphine, a treatment for opioid use disorder, and Dr. Reddy’s was seeking to market a lower-cost version of the product during the height of the opioid crises. After the district court granted a preliminary injunction halting Dr. Reddy’s generic sales, the team appealed to the Federal Circuit, successfully arguing that the claim preclusion doctrine negated Indivior’s likelihood of success on the merits. The success on appeal allowed Dr. Reddy’s to continue sales of its life-saving, low-cost product. Later in the case, Dr. Reddy’s successfully invalidated in an IPR all but two claims of the remaining asserted patent, in which Alexandra conducted the key cross-examination of Indivior’s expert—a victory later affirmed on appeal. The litigation was ultimately resolved with a settlement requiring Indivior to pay Dr. Reddy’s $72 million to account for losses suffered during the improper injunction.
• The Gillette Company v. Dollar Shave Club: Goodwin represented the Gillette subsidiary of consumer products giant Procter & Gamble in its widely publicized competitor litigation against Dollar Shave Club and its suppliers. Gillette asserted that the defendants’ razor blades violated a Gillette patent directed to innovative blade coatings that provide a more comfortable shave and allow for longer life. After Goodwin secured a successful outcome in an international arbitration and defeated a petition for IPR, the patent suit proceeded with Gillette seeking substantial damages. The Goodwin team secured several important victories along the way – prevailing at claim construction and defeating motions for summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity. Nearing the eve of trial, the case settled favorably for Gillette.

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.

More recently, Alexandra served as lead trial counsel in Cox v. Boston, involving constitutional and ADA claims arising from an individual dying in police custody of an opioid overdose. The case is currently on appeal, which will address a significant issue under the Fourteenth Amendment for which there is currently a circuit split.

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.