logo

Back

Darren S. Mogil

Member

: New York
277 Park Avenue
New York, New York 10172
P: (212) 883-4976
TF: (888) 864-3013
F: (646) 588-1385

Darren S. Mogil

Recent Publication:
The Federal Circuit Redefines Secondary Meaning and Infringement for Product Trade Dress in Converse [Alert]
Camille M. Miller and Darren S. Mogil discuss the Federal Circuit opinion that finds registered trade dress carries a presumption of secondary meaning only prospectively from the date of registration and product design trade dress can only infringe if it is substantially similar to the protected trade dress.
More

Darren Mogil's practice includes patent litigation, with particular emphasis on pharmaceutical and ANDA cases, patent prosecution matters, licensing and opinion work. He has worked in all aspects of intellectual property law, including patent, trademark and copyright law, and also has experience in insurance defense litigation.

Darren is admitted to the bars of the State of New York, the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the Eastern District of Texas, and to practice before the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs and the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He has worked on patent matters concerning a wide range of technical areas, such as chemical, pharmaceutical, electronics and mechanical. In the pharmaceutical area, he has been involved in a number of Hatch-Waxman/ANDA litigations concerning various pharmaceuticals such as propofol, metaxalone and fexofenadine. Darren also has worked on appellate matters before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Darren graduated cum laude and Phi Beta Kappa with a B.A. in chemistry from Hofstra University in 1998. He received his J.D. degree from St. John's University School of Law in 2001.

Experience

Represented Sandoz Inc. in King and Mutual v. Sandoz, 08-5974 (D.N.J.), in which Sandoz was alleged to infringe a patent concerning the muscle relaxant Skelaxin®. After an eight-day jury trial, the jury found the patent both invalid and not infringed. Both King and Mutual appealed, but then withdrew their appeal after Sandoz filed its appellate brief.

Represented Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc. in Ben Venue Laboratories, Inc. d/b/a Bedford Laboratories v. Hospira, Inc., 05-1787 (N.D. Ohio).

Represented Eon Labs., Inc. in King Pharms., Inc. v. Eon Labs., Inc., 04-5540 (E.D.N.Y.).

In Aventis v. Dr. Reddy’s, three of Dr. Reddy’s generic fexofenadine products were alleged to infringe a total of seven patents, four patents directed to fexofenadine formulations and three patents directed to methods of treatment using fexofenadine. After a bench trial and with several summary judgment motions filed by Dr. Reddy’s pending, the plaintiff capitulated, providing Dr. Reddy’s with a no-strings-attached covenant not to sue with respect to all asserted patents.

Won a judgment of non-infringement of multiple patents directed toward vehicular tilt control apparatuses on behalf of a German auto parts maker. These judgments were affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which agreed with our arguments that intrinsic evidence and the prosecution history supported the district court's constructions of the claim terms at issue and finding of non-infringement based thereon.

Won summary judgment on behalf of Big Ten Network in its defense of a patent infringement case centering on a mobile streaming application through which users can watch Big Ten Conference games on their mobile devices. In granting our motion, the court agreed that there was no literal infringement of the patent at issue and that the plaintiff was estopped from arguing infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

Publications

The Federal Circuit Redefines Secondary Meaning and Infringement for Product Trade Dress in Converse [Alert]

November 19, 2018

Camille M. Miller and Darren S. Mogil discuss the Federal Circuit opinion that finds registered trade dress carries a presumption of secondary meaning only prospectively from the date of registration and product design trade dress can only infringe if it is substantially similar to the protected trade dress.

When A Patent Disclosure Is Not A Disclosure [Law360]

November 14, 2018

Martin Pavane, vice chair, and Darren Mogil, a member of Cozen O'Connor's Intellectual Property department, co-authored an article in Law360 on the Federal Circuit's decision in FWP IP APS v. Biogen MA, Inc., an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in an interference between FWP and Biogen.

Assignor Estoppel Does Not Apply in IPR Proceedings [Alert]

November 09, 2018

When is a Disclosure Not a Disclosure? [Alert]

November 01, 2018

Martin B. Pavane and Darren S. Mogil discuss the Federal Circuit's decision in FWP IP APS v. Biogen MA, Inc., an appeal from a Patent Trial and Appeal Board decision in an interference between FWP and Biogen.

Nobel Biocare Services AG v. Instradent USA, Inc. – When is a Printed Publication Publicly Available? [Intellectual Property Alert]

October 03, 2018

Martin B. Pavane and Darren S. Mogil discuss how this case provides guidance on how a party seeking to use a publication as prior art can establish when that publication became publicly available, which is the paramount requirement for establishing the date on which the printed publication qualifies as prior art.

The Importance of Properly Maintaining Priority [Intellectual Property Alert]

October 03, 2018

Martin B. Pavane and Darren S. Mogil discuss the Federal Circuit's opinion in Natural Alternatives International, Inc. v. Iancu, concerning priority claims in familial patent applications.

Attorney-Client Privilege Can Protect Multi-Purpose Corporate Communications [Intellectual Property Alert]

July 05, 2018

Martin B. Pavane and Darren S. Mogil discuss the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit's decision in the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Federal Trade Commission v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

The Use of IPR Institution Denial Decisions in Litigation [Intellectual Property Alert]

October 24, 2017

Darren Mogil and Marty Pavane discuss the important issue that arises at trial when the PTAB denies institution of an IPR.

Evidence Postdating a Patent’s Priority Date May Be Relevant to Written Description and Enablement [Intellectual Property Alert]

October 19, 2017

Martin Pavane and Darren Mogil discuss the Federal Circuit's decision in Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi.

Petitioner has the Burden of Proving Unpatentability of Amended Patent Claims in IPRs [Intellectual Property Alert]

October 12, 2017

Darren Mogil discuses Aqua Products, Inc. v. Matal and how it will likely lead to an increase the number of proposed claim amendments allowed by the PTAB.

Venue in Patent Infringement Actions: The Federal Circuit’s Raytheon Co. v. Cray, Inc. Decision [Intellectual Property Alert]

September 28, 2017

In the wake of the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, district courts have been faced with numerous motions to transfer venue. In response to those motions, district courts have developed varying tests for analyzing whether venue is proper. One such test was crafted by Judge Gilstrap of the Eastern District of Texas in a June 29, 2017, opinion in Raytheon Co. v. Cray, Inc., denying defendant Cray’s motion to transfer venue. Believing that the district court erroneously determined that venue was proper in the Eastern District of Texas, Cray petitioned the Federal Circuit for a writ of mandamus.

Practice Areas

Intellectual Property

Intellectual Property Litigation

Patents

Trademark & Copyright

Education

St. John's University School of Law, J.D., 2001
Hofstra University, B.A., cum laude, 1998

Bar Admissions

New York
United States Patent and Trademark Office

Court Admissions

Affiliations

close X

Share this page:

To Email Address*

From Email Address*

Subject

Message