Kevin J. DeJong

Kevin DeJong, a counsel in Goodwin’s Litigation group, focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation. Kevin has experience in a broad range of intellectual property litigation matters, including patent, trademark, and trade secret matters. He has advised clients in a variety of intellectual property-related litigations in the pharmaceutical, medical device, consumer product, and software industries. Kevin also has experience practicing before the PTAB, particularly involving antibody technology.

Kevin has particular expertise in ANDA cases under the Hatch-Waxman Act and cases involving biosimilars under the BPCIA. In addition to his litigation docket, Kevin actively advises clients in freedom-to-operate analyses and pre-suit diligence in relation to biosimilar litigation.  Kevin brings to his practice an exceptional combination of patent law expertise and technical proficiency in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology fields. He holds a degree in chemical engineering, and before pursuing a career in law, he worked in the biotechnology industry as a process engineer responsible for process development, scale-up, and equipment design for cell culture and protein purification processes.

Kevin also devotes a significant amount of time representing pro bono clients in a variety of matters. In particular, Kevin has represented many unaccompanied children seeking to obtain permanent resident status.

Kevin's representative matters include:

• Sanofi-Aventis v. Sandoz (D. Del.): Representing Sandoz in Hatch-Waxman litigation related to cabazitaxel, an oncology drug
• CareDx v. Eurofins Viracor (D. Del.): Representing Eurofins in a patent case involving diagnostic methods using cfDNA as a marker for transplant rejection, resulting in a summary judgment win, affirmed by the Federal Circuit. See https://www.goodwinlaw.com/en/news-and-events/news/2021/10/10_04-delaware-court-rules-in-favor
• JOP v. DHS et al. (D. Md.): Representing class of unaccompanied immigrant children challenging a policy related to eligibility to seek asylum before USCIS
• Represented Fresenius in IPRs related to tocilizumab, resulting in successful institution of several petitions. See https://www.bigmoleculewatch.com/2022/09/06/ptab-institutes-iprs-of-tocilzumab-patents-challenged-by-celltrion/?highlight=fresenius%20tocilizumab
• Genentech et al. v. Celltrion et al. (D. Del.): Represented Celltrion/Teva in suit under the BPCIA related to biosimilar of Herceptin. See https://www.goodwinlaw.com/news/2017/9/09_20_17-goodwin-secures-patent-win-for-celltrion
• Genentech et al. v. Celltrion et al. (D. N.J.): Represented Celltrion/Teva in suit under the BPCIA related to biosimilar of Rituxan
• Gillette v. Dollar Shave Club (D. Del.): Represented Gillette in a suit involving patents on razor blade edge coatings
• Tris Pharma, Inc. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC (D. Del.): Represented Actavis in ANDA case involving methylphenidate hydrochloride extended-release chewable tablets
• Dow Pharma. Sciences v. Teva (D. N.J.): Represented Teva in ANDA case involving clindamycin phosphate and benzoyl peroxide gel
• Teva Pharmaceuticals USA et al. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. (S.D.N.Y.): Represented patent owner in Hatch-Waxman dispute regarding generic version of Copaxone, a complex mixture of polypeptides. Was part of trial team that obtained decision in favor of Teva finding all claims infringed, valid, and enforceable
• Teva Pharmaceuticals USA et al. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al. and Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. (S.D.N.Y.): Represented patent owner in patent litigation involving techniques to measure the molecular weight of complex mixtures of polypeptides
• Momenta Pharmaceuticals v. Teva Pharmaceuticals (D. Mass): Represented Teva in patent litigation related to methods of evaluating low molecular weight heparins
• iHance, Inc. v. Eloqua Ltd. (E.D. Va.): Represented Eloqua in patent litigation involving technology for monitoring email and website behavior of email recipients
• Abbott Point of Care, Inc. v. Epocal, Inc. (N.D. Ala.): Represented Epocal in patent litigation dispute related to point-of-care blood testing diagnostic devices. Was part of trial team that obtained jury verdict in Epocal’s favor in finding no infringement
• X-ray Optical Systems v. Innov-X (N.D.N.Y.): Represented Innov-X in patent ownership dispute relating to x-ray optics technology
• Asentinel LLC v. The Info Group, Inc. et al. (W.D. Tenn.): Represented Veramark in patent litigation involving technology used in analyzing telecommunications invoices

Kevin is a member of the Boston Intellectual Property Inn of Court, the Boston Bar Association and the New Hampshire Bar Association. Kevin also serves as a Senior Editor of the firm’s biosimilars blog, Big Molecule Watch.

Prior to joining Goodwin, Kevin worked as an engineer in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology industry. He has extensive experience in pharmaceutical and biotech manufacturing, process development and scale-up, and equipment design.

In 2023, Kevin was recognized by JD Supra Readers' Choice Awards for his thought leadership in Life Sciences.

Patexia named Kevin as a top ANDA litigator in 2020. While attending law school, Kevin served as Editor-in-Chief of the 49^th Volume of IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review.

• Special Contributor, “Guide to Biosimilars Litigation and Regulation in the U.S., 2023-2024 ed.,” published by Thomson Reuters, January 2024
• Senior Editor, “Guide to Biosimilars Litigation and Regulation in the U.S., 2022-2023 ed.,” published by Thomson Reuters, 2022
• Co-Author, “CareDx, Inc, et al v Eurofins Viracor, Inc,” Intellectual Property Magazine, December 2021
• Contributor, “Guide to Biosimilars Litigation and Regulation in the U.S., 2019-2020 ed.,” published by Thomson Reuters, November 2019
• Co-Author, “Biosimilar V. Biosimilar' Patent Case May Be First Of Many,” Law360, March 2019