Skip To Content

Erin M. Dunston focuses her practice on patent procurement, opinions, enforcement (both in district courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board), and portfolio strategy. With clients ranging from individual inventors to large, multi-national companies, Erin tailors her approach to each client’s goals. Erin’s matters are primarily in the life science space (small molecules, large molecules, and medical devices), but she has handled projects on subject matter ranging from precipitated silica to vaccines to radiotherapy devices. 

Over the course of her over twenty-year career, Erin M. Dunston’s practice has been a purposeful mix of patent prosecution and litigation. Having handled many patent litigations, Erin recognizes how every word in prosecution may ultimately be analyzed by the fact-finder and thus strives for efficient, law- and science-driven prosecution. Her extensive prosecution experience, in turn, is invaluable when analyzing prosecution documents and issues as part of a litigation. With a background in biochemistry, she concentrates her practice primarily in the fields of biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and associated computer technology. 

In terms of patent prosecution, counseling, and strategy, Erin learns her clients’ businesses and how a given project will advance the client’s business objectives, from both offensive and defensive standpoints. Erin also works closely with clients to satisfy budget constraints and assist in leveraging and monetizing patent assets. 

To date, Erin has handled more than 20 district court litigations and more than 25 inter partes reviews (IPRs) and more than 40 interferences before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (P.T.A.B). Assisting both patent owners and putative infringers/petitioners, this experience ranges from pre-filing analyses all the way through appeals to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

Her deep experience in patent law has been recognized by several leading IP organizations and awards programs. Erin has been selected for inclusion among The Best Lawyers in America each year since 2018. She also has been recognized in IAM’s Patent 1000 list – a best-in-class listing of patent prosecution, licensing, and litigation practitioners. For several years, including for 2021, she has been named an IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property and a Leading Intellectual Property Lawyer by Chambers USA. Erin also received Lawyer Monthly’s Women in Law 2016 Award for her contributions to the practice of biotechnology law. 

Erin is the Co-Chair of the firm’s Post-Grant Group. 

 

Memberships
  • Post-Grant Patent Office Practice Committee, Intellectual Property Owners Association
  • Member, Intellectual Property Owners Association
  • Interference, Patent Litigation, and Biotechnology Sections, American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Patent Litigation Section, Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • Member, Pauline Newman American IP Inn of Court
  • Past President, Bar Association of the District of Columbia
  • Former President, McGeorge School of Law Alumni Board
  • Chair of the IP Section of the Bar Association of the District of Columbia
Erin’s representative inter partes reviews before the PTAB include:
  • Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00053 
  • Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00071 
  • Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00072 
  • Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00075 
  • Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00076 
  • Varian Medical Systems, Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00077 
  • Elekta Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00067 
  • Elekta Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00070 
  • Elekta Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00073 
  • Elekta Inc. v. Best Medical International, Inc., IPR2020-00074 
  • Valinge Innovation AB et al. v. Innovations4Flooring Holding, NV, IPR2019-00517 
  • Google LLC et al. v. Space Data Corporation, IPR2018-00944 
  • Google LLC et al. v. Space Data Corporation, IPR2018-00945 
  • Google LLC et al. v. Space Data Corporation, IPR2018-00946 
  • Google LLC et al. v. Space Data Corporation, IPR2018-00947 
  • Maverick Sports Medicine, Inc. v. Implus Footcare, LLC, IPR2016-01227 
  • 3Shape Medical A/S v. Sirona Dental Systems GmbH, IPR2016-00481 
  • Stage Technologies, Inc. v. Olaf Sööt Design, LLC, IPR2015-00116 
  • Stage Technologies, Inc. v. Olaf Sööt Design, LLC, IPR2015-00117 
  • Laird Technologies, Inc. v. GrafTech International Holdings, Inc., IPR2014-00023 
  • Laird Technologies, Inc. v. GrafTech International Holdings, Inc., IPR2014-00024 
  • Laird Technologies, Inc. v. GrafTech International Holdings, Inc., IPR2014-00025 
  • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Monsanto Technology, IPR2014-00331 
  • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Monsanto Technology, IPR2014-00332 
  • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Monsanto Technology, IPR2014-00333 
  • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Monsanto Technology, IPR2014-00334 
  • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Company v. Monsanto Technology, IPR2014-00335 

 

Erin’s representative litigation matters include:
  • PeriRx, Inc. v. The Regents of the University of California et al., Civil Action No. 2:20-cv-02212-JDW (District of Pennsylvania) – (patent licensing dispute surrounding biomarkers) 
  • Best Medical International, Inc. v. Elekta AB et al., Civil Action No. 1-19-cv-03409 (District of Georgia) – (enforcing patents on radiation therapy for the treatment of tumors) 
  • Best Medical International, Inc. v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1-18-cv-01599 (District of Delaware) – (enforcing patents on radiation therapy for the treatment of tumors) 
  • H. Lundbeck A/S et al v. MSN Laboratories Private Limited et al., Civil Action No. 1-18-cv-00853 (District of Delaware) – (challenging patents on vortioxetine) 
  • H. Lundbeck A/S et al. v. MSN Laboratories Private Limited et al. Civil Action No.: 1-18-cv-00114 (District of Delaware) – (challenging patents on vortioxetine) 
  • H. Lundbeck A/S et al v. Apotex Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 1-18-cv-00088 (District of Delaware) – (challenging patents on vortioxetine) 
  • Forest Laboratories, LLC f/k/a Forest Laboratories, Inc. et al. v. Prinston Pharmaceutical Inc. et al., Civil Action No. 2-17-cv-10230 (District of New Jersey) – (challenging patents on levomilnacipran) 
  • Forest Laboratories, LLC f/k/a Forest Laboratories, Inc. et al. v. MSN Laboratories Private Limited et al. Civil Action No. 2-17-cv-10140 (District of New Jersey) – (challenging patents on levomilnacipran) 
  • Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. MSN Laboratories Private Limited et al. Civil Action No. 3-18-cv-00675 (District of New Jersey) – (challenging patent on fosaprepitant) 
  • ENI-JR286, Inc. v. Implus Footcare, LLC, Civil Action No. 2:17-cv-05181 MWF (Central District of California) – (patent infringement and declaratory judgment action involving massage roller technology) 
  • Zoetis, LLC v. Roadrunner Pharmacy, Inc., Civil Action No. 15-3193 NLH/AMD (District of New Jersey) – (patent and trademark infringement action involving FDA-approved canine anti-itch remedy, Apoquel®) 
  • Zoetis, LLC v. AX Pharm. Corp., Civil Action No. 16-02642-PHX-GMS (District of Arizona) – (patent infringement action involving FDA-approved canine anti-itch remedy, Apoquel®) 
  • Zoetis, LLC v. Attix Pharms. Inc., Civil Action No. 16-02640-PHX-DJH (District of Arizona) – (patent infringement action involving FDA-approved canine anti-itch remedy, Apoquel®) 
  • Ethox Chemicals, LLC v. The Coca-Cola Co., 683 F. App’x 958 (Fed. Cir. 2017) – (omitted inventor action under 35 U.S.C. § 256 concerning gas barrier technology) 
  • In re Commonwealth Scientific & Indus. Research Org., 2015 WL 7423624 (Fed. Cir. 2015) – (interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(1)) 
  • Loughlin v. Ling, 684 F.3d 1289 (Fed. Cir. 2012) – (interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 135(b)(2)) 
  • In re Brimonidine Patent Litigation, 643 F.3d 1366 (Fed. Cir. 2011), 666 F. Supp.2d 429 (D. Del. 2009) – (paragraph IV litigation regarding brimonidine tartrate used to lower intra-ocular pressure and alleviate glaucoma) 
  • Brassica Protection Products LLC and The Johns Hopkins University v. Caudill Seed & Warehouse Co., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 54135 (Southern District of New York) – (patent infringement case regarding chemoprotective cruciferous extracts) 
  • University of Pittsburgh of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education v. Marc H. Hedrick et al., 573 F.3d 1290 (Fed. Cir. 2009) – (represented co-inventors of adipose-derived stem cells from the Regents of the University of California in action to correct inventorship) 
  • Enzo Therapeutics, Inc. v. Yeda Research & Dev. Co., 467 F. Supp.2d 579 (Eastern District of Virginia 2006), 477 F. Supp.2d 699 (Eastern District of Virginia 2007) – (represented Yeda Research and Development Co. in a 146 Action involving interferon-β2) 
  • Rhodia Chimie and Rhodia Inc. v. PPG Industries, Inc., 402 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2005) – (represented Rhodia Chimie and Rhodia Inc. in a patent infringement action concerning precipitated silica) 
  • Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18361 (Southern District Court of Indiana) – (Paragraph IV litigation finding defendants to have willfully infringed Lilly’s patent covering Nizatidine and the product AXID®) 
  • Novo Nordisk A/S v. Eli Lilly & Co., 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 18690 (District of Delaware) – (represented Eli Lilly in a declaratory judgment action by a competitor for non-infringement and invalidity of Lilly’s patent on the rapid-acting human insulin analog formulation, insulin lispro [rDNA origin] and the product Humalog®) 

 

Erin’s representative interference matters include:
  • The Broad Institute, Inc. v. Regents of the University of California, Interference 106,048 – (Crispr Cas9) 
  • Zieler v. Ananiev, Interference No. 105,989 – (artificial plant minichromosomes) 
  • Rozbicki v. Chiang, Interference No. 105,898 – (methods for depositing diffusion barriers) 
  • Dung v. Buehler, Interference No. 105,893 – (analgesics) 
  • Tobinick v. Olmarker, Interference No. 105,866 – (methods for treating nerve disorders mediated by nucleus pulposus using TNF-α inhibitors) 
  • Zinn v. Powers, Interference No. 105,860 – (venous access port assemblies) 
  • Olmarker v. Le, Interference No. 105,842 – (methods for treating nerve disorders mediated by nucleus pulposus using TNF-α inhibitors) 
  • Merten v. Franchina, Interference No. 105,804 (fluorochemicals), United States Patent and Trademark Office, Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences 
  • CSIRO and Bayer BioScience N.V. v. Carnegie Institute of Washington and the University of Massachusetts, Interference No. 105,754 – (inhibiting gene expression using RNAi) 
  • Kawahara v. Abraham, Interference No. 105,696 – (non-nutrative sweeteners) 
  • Short v. Patten, Interference No. 105,532 – (methods and compositions for polypeptide engineering) 
  • Browning v. Yu, Interference No. 105,485 – (methods for inhibiting B lymphocytes) 
  • Howell v. Lentz, Interference No. 105,413 – (methods of enhancing immune responses by removing sTNFR1) 
  • DeLucas v. Santarsiero, Interference No. 105,403 – (methods for performing microarrays of protein crystallizations) 
  • Sehgal v. Revel, Interference No. 105,304 – (interferon β-2, IL-6) 
  • Sehgal v. Revel, Interference No. 105,303 – (interferon β-2, IL-6) 
  • Sehgal v. Revel, Interference No. 105,302 – (interferon β-2, IL-6) 
  • Sehgal v. Revel, Interference No. 105,293 – (interferon β-2, IL-6) 
  • Short v. Punnonen, Interference No. 105,188 – (non-stochastic generation of genetic vaccines) 
  • Genencor v. Novozymes, Interference No. 105,155 – (detergent compositions comprising fungal cellulases) 
  • Wang v. Murakawa, Interference No. 105,055 – (quantitative PCR) 
  • Deen v. Ni, Interference No. 104,784 – (TNF-1) 
  • University of Washington v. Eli Lilly & Co., Interference No. 104,733 – (vitamin K-dependent serine proteases) 
  • Noelle v. Lederman, Interference No. 104,415 – (CD40CR monoclonal antibodies) 
  • Slaikeu v. Onishi, Interference No. 103,993 – (catheter technology to prevent watermelon seeding) 
  • Talieh v. Demaray, Interference No. 103,629 – (collimated plasma sputtering) 
  • The Best Lawyers in America, Patent Law, 2018 — 2021
  • IP Star, Managing Intellectual Property, 2014 — 2021
  • Patent 1000, IAM, 2014 — 2020
  • Leading Intellectual Property Lawyer, Chambers USA, 2014 — 2016
  • Women in Law Award, Lawyer Monthly, 2016

Outside of work, Erin enjoys spending time with her rescued pup cooking, GOATA, CrossFit, tackling half and full marathons, deep sea fishing, and kayaking.

Erin Dunston smiles in a green helmet in nature Erin Dunston smiles with a half marathon medal
Let's Plan

Panitch Schwarze commits the time to listen to and evaluate each client’s unique needs so we can advise on the best forms of IP protection.