Jake M. Holdreith

612.349.8483

Experience

Mr. Holdreith leads the firm’s Health and Life Sciences Industry Group and serves as a member of the firm's Executive Board. He is known as a strategist, a trusted counselor and an able courtroom lawyer. He has tried jury cases to multi-million dollar verdicts, and has resolved complex cases at all stages of litigation. Chambers says he "comes recommended for his strengths in high-value IP disputes, particularly in the healthcare and life sciences spaces." His clients attest that he is "very good at developing and communicating strategy" and "acutely aware of business concerns." IAM’s The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners says he is "known for his imagination and flair in court," and reports a client’s observation that "he develops a compelling case and knows what he needs to prove in court. Jake is creative and sees issues from all angles, but quickly finds the best arguments. His counsel is informed by a fine-tuned sense of business and legal priorities. He is one of our best lawyers and we trust him with our most important cases."

Mr. Holdreith counsels clients and tries complex lawsuits including intellectual property, regulatory and constitutional litigation. He understands the unique challenges of operating in complex legal and regulatory environments, and he is an experienced courtroom advocate in Hatch-Waxman cases. He has handled cases in the United States, Europe and Asia.

Mr. Holdreith uses a business partnership approach to his engagements. He defines litigation success in terms of client-focused outcomes, and manages projects with budgeting and regular communication.

Mr. Holdreith regularly speaks on topics such as trial skills and strategies, alternative fee agreements, presentation of experts in complex cases, and damages.

When not practicing law, Mr. Holdreith has ridden his bike to the summits of the Courchevel and the Col du Petit Saint Bernard. His wife, two daughters, and two sons also keep him hopping.

+ READ MORE - READ LESS

Mr. Holdreith has handled jury verdicts of $34.7 million (St. Clair v. Canon); $25 million (St. Clair v. Sony) and $8 million (Personal Audio v. Apple), as well as defense wins including a successful defense of non-infringement after trial in an ANDA case involving the blockbuster drug Sensipar (Amgen v. Amneal), a judgment dismissing claims of infringement of three Orange Book listed patents leading to the launch of an abuse-deterrent formulation of oxycodone (Purdue v. Collegium), a summary judgement of non-infringement of ten patents (Auxilium v. Upsher Smith Labs), a trial judgment of invalidity of three patents (Purdue v. Actavis), and denial of an injunction after a bench trial, which later resulted in invalidity of the asserted patent (Medicis Pharm. Corp. v Upsher-Smith Labs).

Lead trial counsel to defendant Amneal Pharmaceuticals in Amgen v. Amneal, a four-day Hatch-Waxman patent infringement trial before Judge Goldberg, sitting specially for the Federal District Court in Delaware. Obtained a defense finding of non-infringement on Amneal unique non-infringement defense that its proposed formulation of the blockbuster drug Sensipar does not infringe Markush limitations of the asserted patent. The case is Amgen v. Amneal et al., No. 1:16-cv-00853-MSG. The trial order and memorandum were issued on July 27, 2018.

Lead counsel to IFS Industries, Inc. and an individual employee in defense of trade secret and related claims in the State District Court of Minnesota, Ramsey County, involving the alleged misappropriation of hot melt adhesive formulations containing amorphous poly-alpha olefins and heterophasic metallocene-catalyzed polypropylene. Obtained early dismissal of a claim seeking to gain ownership of certain IFS Industries patents and patent applications based on plaintiff’s refusal to join an indispensable party. Obtained an order requiring plaintiff to identify its alleged trade secrets with specificity prior to discovery. Following discovery and motion practice, including a motion by plaintiff to withdraw its trade secret count, the case was resolved by settlement. Adherent Laboratories, Inc. v. William Bunnelle and IFS Industries, Inc., No. 62-CV-16-531.

Lead trial counsel to lead defendant Amneal Pharmaceuticals in Endo Pharm. v. Amneal Pharm., et al, a three-day Hatch-Waxman patent infringement trial before Judge Andrews of the Federal District Court in Delaware. The case involved the validity of claims to oxymorphone hydrochloride with low levels of alpha, beta unsaturated ketones, the active ingredient in Opana. The case was tried July 11-13, 2016 and is pending in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 

Lead counsel for Virtual Radiologic Corporation and Nighthawk Radiology Services in Virtual Radiologic Corp. v. Tandem, an action for patent infringement, copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and interference with contract in the District Court for the District  of Arizona. We obtained injunctions in favor of our client on September 19, 2014, including a finding of patent infringement. The case involved our clients’ teleradiology technology and confidential  business information. The action is civil action number 2:13-cv-01705.

Lead trial counsel to lead defendant Novel Laboratories in Purdue Pharm. Prods. v. Actavis Elizabeth LLC et al, an 11-day Hatch-Waxman patent infringement trial before Judge Jose Linares of the Federal District Court in New Jersey. The case involved three Orange Book listed patents related to zolpidem tartrate, the active ingredient in Intermezzo and Ambien. On March 27, 2015, Judge Linares issued an opinion determining that all of the asserted patents were invalid. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals issued a summary affirmance under Rule 36 within days of oral argument on January 8, 2016. The action on appeal was No. 15-1659.

Lead counsel to Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc., in a series of related cases involving five patents owned by Purdue and related entities related to oxycodone. We obtained a judgment of invalidity of the three Orange Book listed patents in Purdue Pharma LP v. Collegium Pharm. case number MAD-1-15-cv-13099 on February 18, 2016, after succeeding in a motion to transfer the action from the District of Delaware to the District of Massachusetts.

Counsel to investors and NDA filers under section 505(b)(2) for patent evaluation and litigation strategy resulting in successful financing of development and commercialization.

Counsel to Quest Diagnostics in Mayo Collaborative Services LLC et al. vs Franklin R. Cockerill et al., case number 55-CV-14-6861, in the State District Court of Minnesota, Olmsted County, a matter filed by Mayo Clinic LLC against a former top Mayo executive involving claims of breach of fiduciary duty and trade secret.

Lead defense counsel for Upsher-Smith Laboratories in Auxilium Pharmaceuticals v. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement case in which we obtained a summary judgment of non-infringement of ten Orange Book listed patents claiming a transdermal testosterone gel and method of treating hypogonadism before Judge Sue Robinson of the Federal District Court in Delaware. The opinion was filed on December 4, 2013. The case in the District Court was No. DED-1-13-cv-00148. The technology related to claimed macrocyclic penetration enhancers for increasing the rate of passage of an androgen through the skin. We were successful in demonstrating to the Court that the case warranted an exception to the Court’s ordinary practice of declining to hear summary judgment motions in Hatch-Waxman cases. An appeal was dismissed on September 18, 2014, resulting in a final judgment of non-infringement for our client.

Trial counsel in Personal Audio LLC v. Apple Inc.,  a patent infringement case in which a Texas federal jury awarded our client, Personal Audio LLC, $8 million in damages after finding that Apple’s iPods infringed our client’s patent for an audio player that can download or receive navigable playlists.  The verdict was announced on July 8, 2011. The court also awarded prejudgment interest in the amount of $4,182,331 for a total judgment of $12,182,331. 

Lead defense counsel for Upsher-Smith Laboratories in a copyright, trade dress, and patent  action concerning packaging for a pharmaceutical, and a related indemnification dispute. Resolved on confidential terms prior to significant litigation.

Lead defense counsel to Tornier, Inc.,  in Nuvana Medical Innovations LLC v. Tornier, Inc., a patent infringement action filed in the Federal District Court in Delaware concerning the Aequalis Intermedullary Nail used for shoulder fractures. The action was resolved on confidential terms prior to significant litigation.

Lead counsel for large beverage company in defense of a matter involving multiple patents. Resolved without litigation.

Lead counsel for Upsher-Smith Laboratories in ongoing actions arising under the Hatch-Waxman Act.

Counsel to a Requestor in an action naming the University of Texas at Austin under the Texas Public Information Act seeking disclosure of public records. Following several discovery motions and the depositions of records custodians, the matter was resolved by production of the requested records to our client.

Lead trial counsel defending Upsher-Smith Laboratories in a patent suit to enjoin the sale of a pharmaceutical formulation.  Following a two-day bench trial on the issues of infringement, validity and enforceability of the plaintiff's patent, the Court denied a request to temporarily enjoin the client from making and selling its products.  All claims asserted against our client were subsequently invalidated during an ex parte re-examination based on the same arguments and evidence we presented during the bench trial.  The invalidity of the claims was summarily affirmed on appeal to the CAFC. The district court action is Medicis Pharm. Corp. v. Upsher-Smith Labs., No. CV05-3458 (D. Az. filed October 27, 2005).  The re-examination appeal is No. 2009-1291 (Reexamination No. 90/008,068).

Trial counsel in St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Canon, Inc. et al., No. 03-241 (D. Del., filed February 28, 2003) a case in which a federal jury in Wilmington, Delaware awarded Mr. Holdreith's client, St. Clair, $34.7 million after a finding that Canon infringed four patents relating to digital camera technology. The verdict was announced on October 8, 2004.

Trial Counsel in St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Fuji, Ltd. et al., No. 03-241 (D. Del., filed February 28, 2003) a case in which a federal jury in Wilmington, Delaware awarded Mr. Holdreith’s client, St. Clair, $3 million after a finding that Fuji infringed four patents relating to digital camera technology.  The verdict was announced on October 25, 2004.  After a long and tortured post-trial history the verdict was reversed by the Federal Circuit on a claim construction issue.

Trial counsel in St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Sony Corp. et al., No. 01-557 (D. Del., filed Aug. 14, 2001) a case in which a federal jury in Wilmington, Delaware awarded his client, St. Clair, $25 million after a finding that Sony infringed four patents relating to digital camera technology.  The verdict was announced on February 25, 2003.  The parties entered into a license agreement two days later, the terms of which are confidential.

Lead counsel in complex patent litigation in several jurisdictions, including cross claims for infringement of seven patents on surgical methods and devices.  Matter was settled on confidential terms involving cross-licenses. 

Defended ev3, Inc. in an action brought by Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. for misappropriation of trade secrets and infringement of patents related to medical devices known as embolic protection filters.  Also represented ev3, Inc. in patent counterclaims against the Boston Scientific defendants involving embolic protection technology.  Claims for misappropriation of trade secrets were dismissed in part.  The patent claims and counterclaims were settled before trial on a confidential basis.

Lead counsel for individual inventor and related small business in defense of an action by former employer seeking to gain control of our client’s subsequent invention and resulting business. The case was resolved prior to significant litigation through our successful motion on the plaintiff’s failure to join an indispensable party, resulting in a negotiated resolution of the claims.

Member of a team that obtained a ruling of federal preemption in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal as counsel to General Electric Company in a putative class action alleging state law claims of hearing loss by workers on locomotives. The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that the claims were preempted under the Federal Boiler Inspection Act, and dismissed all claims against our client. Law v. General Motors and General Electric, 114 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 1997).

Appellate counsel to Bicoastal Corporation in appeal of commercial dispute argued before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Obtained summary affirmance for our client in a commercial dispute concerning an acquisition, dismissing claims by an unsuccessful bidder for an aerospace business alleging improper termination of the acquisition agreement and seeking a breakup fee. 87 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 1996).

Member of a team that was counsel to Bicoastal Corporation and obtained a recovery of $94 million in complex international litigation to recover royalties due for use for use of the trademarks of the former Singer Sewing Machine Company. The original claim and judgment were decided in the bankruptcy court for the Middle District of Florida. Follow-on collection actions were prosecuted in multiple jurisdictions including the United States and Hong Kong.

Counsel to Metropolitan Airport Commission in regulatory litigation concerning administrative rules promulgated by the Commission under its statutory powers. Obtained judgment that the Commission acted within its authority, and obtained dismissal of claims challenging rules for ground transportation operators as against challenges arising under the applicable statute, as well as claims sounding in due process and equal protection. Hyland v. Metropolitan Airport Com’n, 884 F.Supp. 334 (1995).

Counsel to Wisconsin Central Railroad in regulatory litigation concerning Wisconsin’s “conductor law” governing the qualifications of conductors. Obtained a ruling that the state law challenged by our client is preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act. State v. Wisconsin Central Transp. Corp., 200 Wis.2d 450, 546 N.W.2d 206 (Ct. App. 1996).

Lead trial counsel for ATEC associates in contested regulatory matter relater before the State of Minnesota Office Of Administrative Hearings, resulting in significant reduction of penalties under contested Administrative Penalty Order.

Other cases include trial experience in complex, multi-million dollar patent litigation in multiple forums and before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.  Technologies include, among others, medical devices, surgical methods, computer hardware and software, and pharmaceuticals.

Benchmark Highly Recommended Firm 2020
Super Lawyers 2019
Chambers USA 2019
American Bar Foundation
IP Star 2018
IAM Patent 1000
Jake Holdreith - Lawyer of the Year 2012 Intellectual Property Litigation Minneapolis
Rated by Super Lawyers Top 100, Minnesota
  • Named to the “IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists” list (2019)
  • Named 2019 Minnesota Outstanding IP Litigator, Managing Intellectual Property (2019) 
  • Named in Chambers USA as a Notable Practitioner in Intellectual Property (2016-2019)
  • Named an "Attorney of the Year," The Best Lawyers in America (2018)
  • Named an “Intellectual Property Trailblazer” by The National Law Journal (2017)
  • Recipient of “Hatch-Waxman Impact Cases of the Year” award, LMG Life Sciences (2016)
  • Named a “Life Sciences Star,” LMG Life Sciences (2012-2014, 2016)
  • Named “General Patent Litigator of the Year,” LMG Life Sciences (2015)
  • Named a “Patent Star” and “Trademark Star,” Managing Intellectual Property (2016-2018)
  • Named an “IP Star,” Managing Intellectual Property (2015)
  • Recipient of the “Diversity Mentoring Award,” Robins Kaplan LLP (2015)
  • Listed as a "Recommended Individual for Litigation and Licensing (Minnesota)," IAM 1000: The World's Leading Patent Practitioners (2014-2019)
  • Named "Minneapolis Intellectual Property Law Lawyer of the Year," Best Lawyers (2012)
  • Listed in The Best Lawyers in America (2011-2020 editions)
  • Named a "Minnesota Super Lawyer," Super Lawyers (2005-2006, 2011-2019) and “Top 100 Minnesota Super Lawyer” (2013)
Bar Admissions
  • Minnesota
  • New York
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, Colorado
  • U.S. District Court, Minnesota
  • U.S. District Court, Western District Wisconsin
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
Spoken Languages
  • French
  • German
  • Russian
Education
  • University of Iowa College of Law, J.D., Order of Coif (1990)
  • Macalester College, B.A., magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa (1987)
Professional Associations
  • Chair of the Patent Committee, Local Patent Rules for the Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota (2005)
  • American Bar Association
  • American Bar Foundation, Fellow
  • American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association
  • New York Intellectual Property Lawyers Association
  • Federal Bar Association
  • Minnesota Intellectual Property Lawyers Association
  • Advisory Board, Bloomberg BNA Medical Devices Law & Industry Report (2014-2018) 
  • Advisory Board, MobCon Digital Health

Quoted in:

  • Balancing the Budget: Keeping Hatch-Waxman Litigation Costs In Check (Panel)
    American Conference Institute, Chicago, Illinois (September 19, 2016)
  • High Stakes Litigation in Digital Health Care Is Here: Preparing to Protect and Defend Your Business
    MobCon Digital Health, Minneapolis, Minnesota (April 26, 2016)
  • Patent Infringement Litigation Three Day Course
    Patent Resources Group, Orlando, Florida (April 12, 2015)
  • Recovering Attorneys' Fees
    Intellectual Property Owners Association, Webinar (October 22, 2014)
  • Patent Assertion in Life Sciences
    MedTech Investing Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota (May 21, 2014)
  • Panel: PTAB Post Grant Challenges: PTAB Trial Refresher, Survey of Board Decisions, and Parallel Litigation
    Panel with Tim Bianchi and Scott McKeown, Midwest IP Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (September 26, 2013)
  • Instructor
    National Institute of Trial Advocacy, William Mitchell College of Law, St. Paul, Minnesota (September 2, 2013)
  • Patent Infringement Litigation
    Patent Resources Group, Orlando, Florida (April 11, 2013)
  • Alternative Fee Arrangements (Webinar)
    LES Clean Tech Committee (August 13, 2012)
  • The Art of Arguing Markman
    Panel Discussion with The Honorable Judge Donovan Frank, The Honorable Judge Patrick Schiltz, and Jeff Ali, Federal Bar Association, Minnesota Chapter, Minneapolis, Minnesota (April 10, 2012)
  • Alternative Fee Arrangements (Webinar)
    LES Aerospace & Transportation Committee (March 7, 2012)
  • The New Patent Law and its Effect on Patent Litigation
    LES Minnesota Chapter, Minneapolis, Minnesota (November 8, 2011)
  • Retaining Contingency Counsel (Webinar)
    The Business Development Academy (September 19, 2011)
  • The Use of Re-Examination in District Court and Appellate Litigation
    IPO Chat Channel, Webinar (August 25, 2011)
  • Injunctions are Alive and Well After eBay
    AIPLA 2010 Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. (October 22, 2010)
  • Big Verdicts Under Scrutiny: Taking a Hard Look at the Damages Case
    Midwest IP Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (September 24, 2010)
  • Mastering Markman: A Strategic Approach to Claim Construction
    Patent Resources Group, New York, New York (September 22, 2010)
  • Building Trial Skills and Deposition Program CLE (Instructor)
    National Institute for Trial Advocacy, St. Paul, Minnesota (September 13, 2010)
  • Deposition Skills: Learning From the Worst - Handling Difficult Opposing Counsel During a Deposition (Webcast Presenter)
    Minnesota CLE (May 10, 2010)
  • How to Make an Alternative Fee Bid for Patent Litigation Work: The Essentials for Law Firm Attorneys (Webinar)
    Intellectual Property Owners Association (March 16, 2010)
  • How to Prepare for a Markman Hearing
    Patent Resources Group, Arlington, Virginia (February 11, 2010)
  • 360° View of the Plaintiff’s Case
    The Art of Litigation and Trial Advocacy, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., New York, New York (October 27, 2009)
  • Surviving the New Economic Paradigm (Panel Discussion)
    Fourth Annual BNA/ABA Section of IP Patent Law Conference, Washington, D.C. (October 5, 2009)
  • Inter Partes Reexamination (Panel Discussion)
    2009 Midwest IP Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (September 24, 2009)
  • Finding the Right Expert at the Right Time (Panel Discussion)
    Minnesota CLE's First Litigation Advocacy Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (June 4, 2009)
  • Patent Infringement Litigation
    Patent Resources Group, Omni Orlando, Orlando, Florida (April 23, 2009)
  • Deposition Skills Series: Difficult Opposing Counsel (Webcast presentation)
    Minnesota CLE (November 12, 2008)
  • Ediscovery: An Advanced Discussion of Today's Most Important 'Make or Break' Practical Issues (Course Chair and Moderator of Panel with Chief Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm, Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron, and Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse)
    Minnesota CLE, Minneapolis, Minnesota (August 21, 2008)
  • Patent Infringement Litigation
    Patent Resources Group, Hyatt Regency Coconut Point, Bonita Springs, Florida (April 3, 2008)
  • Advanced Ediscovery
    Minnesota CLE, Minnesota CLE Conference Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota (August 20, 2007)
  • Patent Infringement Litigation
    Patent Resources Group, Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress, Orlando, Florida (April 16, 2007)
  • Year in Review: The Local Patent Rules
    Minnesota Federal Bar Association (Panel discussion with members of the bench) (February 1, 2007)
  • The Patent Prosecutor's Guide to Patent Litigation
    Midwest IP Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (September 25, 2006)
  • Hot Topics in IP Licensing 2006: Infringement Licensing from Both Sides
    Minnesota CLE, MIPLA and the Licensing Executives Society – Minnesota Chapter (June 9, 2006)
  • Super CLE Week XXVI: IP Enforcement: A View from the Trenches of Patent Litigation
    University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, MN (March 14, 2006)
Back to Top