Mr. Zubick is praised for being a “Hatch-Waxman Act expert” who “demonstrates some of the best analysis and judgment in the business.”IAM Patent 1000 2019

Marc N. Zubick

Chicago | New York
  • 330 North Wabash Avenue, Suite 2800
  • Chicago, IL 60611
  • USA

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:

  • 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.
Notice: We appreciate your interest in Latham & Watkins. If your inquiry relates to a legal matter and you are not already a current client of the firm, please do not transmit any confidential information to us. Before taking on a representation, we must determine whether we are in a position to assist you and agree on the terms and conditions of engagement with you. Until we have completed such steps, we will not be deemed to have a lawyer-client relationship with you, and will have no duty to keep confidential the information we receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.