Marc Zubick is a partner in the Chicago and New York offices of Latham & Watkins. Mr. Zubick is a member of Latham's Intellectual Property Litigation Practice with a particular emphasis in pharmaceutical patent litigation involving claims arising under the Hatch-Waxman Act.

Mr. Zubick has represented branded pharmaceutical clients from the pre-litigation stage through trial in various federal district courts and appeals to the Federal Circuit.

He has also worked on several patent infringement trials involving computer and telecommunications technologies.

Mr. Zubick is highly involved in pro bono matters and recently represented the NAACP and New York Civil Liberties Union in a Voting Rights Act trial in the Southern District of New York.

Mr. Zubick's experience includes representing:

  • Jazz Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Avadel Pharmaceuticals, Inc. – Counsel for Avadel in a series of patent litigations involving Avadel’s once-nightly narcolepsy drug LUMRYZ. Successfully obtained a ruling ordering delisting of an asserted patent from the Orange Book, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on appeal
  • Amgen v. MSN/Aurobindo/USV – Counsel for Amgen in a series of patent litigations involving Amgen’s secondary hyperparathyroidism drug PARSABIV. Cases all settled favorably before trial
  • Peloton v. Echelon/iFIT – Counsel for Peloton in a series of offensive patent litigations and defensive IPRs involving Peloton’s patents on its leaderboard technology. Cases settled following favorable claim construction and IPR decisions
  • iFIT v. Peloton – Counsel for Peloton in a series of patentlitigations brought by iFIT. Invalidated one of iFIT’s asserted patents at the claim construction
  • Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC – Counsel for Cadence in this ANDA patent infringement suit involving Exela’s efforts to market a generic equivalent to Cadence’s Ofirmev® IV product. Following a bench trial, the District Court for the District of Delaware ruled in Cadence’s favor, finding the patents valid and infringed. The Federal Circuit issued an opinion fully affirming the District Court’s opinion in March 2015
  • Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC v. Lee – Counsel for Cadence Pharmaceuticals Inc., who intervened in a lawsuit against the Patent Office in defense of one of Cadence’s patents covering Ofirmev®. The District Court dismissed the action and the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal in March 2015
  • Cadence Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC – Counsel for Cadence in this patent infringement suit involving Fresenius’ 505(b)(2) application seeking to market a generic equivalent to Cadence’s Ofirmev® IV product. The matter settled on favorable terms following the District Court’s denial of Fresenius’ motion for summary judgment
  • Cephalon, Inc. & Eagle Pharmaceuticals v. Slayback Pharma Ltd. – Co-lead counsel for Eagle in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving efforts by Apotex, Fresenius Kabi, Slayback, and Mylan to market a generic equivalent to Eagle’s Bendeka® oncology product. Pending in the District of Delaware
  • Mallinckrodt Hospital Products Inc. v. Praxair Inc. (D. Del.) – Counsel for Mallinckrodt in defending against a challenge to ten patents covering its successful INOmax drug product and DSIR medical device in parallel proceedings before the District of Delaware and the Patent Office
  • Endo Pharmaceuticals v. Lupin Atlantis Holdings – Counsel for Endo in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving Lupin’s effort to market a generic version of Endo’s branded Nascobal® Nasal Spray. Endo and Lupin entered into a consent judgment with Lupin acknowledging infringement and validity and agreeing to refrain from entering the market until licensed

Bar Qualification

  • Illinois
  • Massachusetts
  • New York


  • JD, New York University School of Law, 2007
    Staff Editor, Environmental Law Journal, Korein Fellow
  • BA in Environmental Engineering, Rice University, 2001
  • BS in Chemical Engineering, Rice University, 2001
General Recognition Thumbnail
August 6, 2018 Recognition

Latham in the Lead

You know those air-filled plastic pouches that pad the contents of just about every box you get in the mail? They’re called dunnage. And two companies that make them are involved in a big patent fight, including Latham client Free-Flow Packaging International Inc.