Jeffrey I.D. Lewis Image

Jeffrey I.D. Lewis

is a partner at Norton Rose Fulbright, resident in the firm’s New York office. A chemical engineer and registered patent attorney, Jeff concentrates on patent and trademark litigation, counseling, and licensing, as well as other intellectual property and general litigation. He regularly represents plaintiffs as well as defendants ? both at trial and on appeal ? in a range of technology-related sectors with a focus on pharmaceuticals, chemicals, mechanical/medical-device, biotechnology and life sciences, and has represented pharmaceutical innovators in numerous Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) patent litigations. Jeff has been lead counsel in several dozen cases before the U.S. federal district courts and other tribunals, often trying them to conclusion, and argued numerous appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

For more information or to contact Jeffrey, please visit his Firm Profile Page.

Recent Articles by Jeffrey I.D. Lewis

AIPLA: The Supreme Court Must Ensure the U.S. Government Adheres to the American Rule in Peter v. NantKwest

When a patent or trademark applicant loses in front of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO), they can either appeal to a court of appeals or develop a fuller record by starting a district court action. If the applicant goes to district court, then the applicable statute says that the applicant-appellant pays “[a]ll the expenses of the proceedings,” and everyone at one time agreed that those expenses did not include fees for the government’s attorneys. That changed in 2013, when the USPTO unilaterally started including its attorney and support staff fees amongst the expenses. On the first Monday of October—the first day of arguments in the Supreme Court’s 2019 term—the Court will hear argument in Peter v. NantKwest, No. 18-801. The question in that case is whether the word “expenses” includes the government’s attorneys’ fees. On July 22, we filed an amicus brief on behalf of the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) arguing that it does not.