Close X
Attorney Spotlight

How did an interest in healthcare policy lead Robert Platt to a career in the law? Find out more>

Search

Close X

Experience

Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

Envision to Sell to KKR for $9.9 Billion

We represented Envision Healthcare Corporation (NYSE: EVHC) in its definitive agreement to sell to KKR in an all-cash transaction for $9.9 billion, including debt. KKR will pay $46 per Envision share in cash to buy the company, marking a 32 percent premium to the company's volume-weighted average share price from November 1, when Envision announced it was considering its options. The transaction is expected to close the fourth quarter of 2018. Read more


Envision Healthcare

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Six Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice spotlight

Dermatology, ophthalmology, radiology, urology…the list goes on. Yet, in any physician practice management transaction, there are six key considerations that apply and, if not carefully managed, can derail a transaction. Download the 6 Things to Know Before Buying a Physician Practice to keep your physician practice management transactions on track.

Click here to download the guide.

Dismissal of Patent Infringement Case Against Pharmaceutical Company

Client Type: Private Company

We successfully moved to dismiss a patent infringement case alleging that our client's marketing and sale of a highly successful cancer treatment drug infringed a patent related to "Methods for Preventing Multidrug Resistance in Cancer Cells." Notably, the asserted patent expired nearly two years before the litigation was commenced, so the plaintiff only sought past damages for the alleged infringement. Our team moved to dismiss the complaint after identifying a gap in the assignment history of the asserted patent recorded with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). According to the USPTO records, the plaintiff, and inventors of the asserted patent, assigned their interests in the patent to the board of trustees of the University of Illinois in 1995. Shortly before filing the lawsuit in 2014, the plaintiff recorded a subsequent assignment of their interest in the asserted patent to themselves. Judge Trauger found that the plaintiff lacked standing to sue for past infringement of the expired patent and dismissed the case.

You Also May Be Interested In:

Related Professionals

Related Services

Notice

Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.