Richard Hadorn is a seasoned intellectual property (IP) litigator with extensive experience in all phases of patent and trademark litigations—from initial fact investigation through trial and appeal—before U.S. district courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Mr. Hadorn has worked on matters involving a broad range of technologies, including pharmaceuticals, biologics, medical devices, motor vehicles, computer software and hardware, telecommunications, and the mechanical arts.
In addition to his litigation practice, Mr. Hadorn advises his clients on a wide variety of IP matters, including licensing, transactions, and strategic patent and trademark prosecution. He also strives to settle his clients’ disputes without litigation, whenever possible.
Before joining Mei & Mark LLP, Mr. Hadorn was an IP litigator at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC and Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP. He was also consistently recognized as a “Rising Star” in the field of IP litigation by Super Lawyers magazine in Virginia (2009-2012) and Washington, DC (2013-2016).
While in law school, Mr. Hadorn served as Editor-in-Chief of the William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, and received the Dean’s Certificate for leadership and initiative on behalf of the law school. He also served as a summer law clerk to the Honorable Walter S. Felton, Jr. of the Court of Appeals of Virginia, and as a summer intern for the Suffolk County (N.Y.) District Attorney’s Office.
U.S. International Trade Commission Section 337 Investigations
ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1139, Certain Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Components Thereof (patent dispute).
ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1123, Certain Carburetors and Products Containing Such Carburetors (patent dispute).
ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1106, Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof (patent dispute).
ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1007/1021, Certain Personal Transporters, Components Thereof, and Packaging and Manuals Therefor (patent and trademark dispute).
ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1000, Certain Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles (patent dispute).
ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-984, Certain Computing or Graphics Systems, Components Thereof, and Vehicles Containing Same (patent dispute).
ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-936, Certain Footwear Products (trademark dispute).
ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-911, Certain Lithium Silicate Materials and Products Containing the Same (patent dispute).
ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-903, Certain Antivenom Compositions and Products Containing the Same (patent dispute).
ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-871, Certain Wireless Communications Base Stations and Components Thereof (patent dispute).
U.S. District Court and U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board Cases
Meda Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Roxane Laboratories, Inc. et al. (D. Del.) (Hatch-Waxman litigation concerning a treatment for allergic rhinitis containing azelastine hydrochloride).
AstraZeneca AB et al. v. Kremers Urban Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. (D.N.J.) (Hatch-Waxman litigation concerning a treatment for gastroesophageal reflux disease containing esomeprazole).
Alcon Pharmaceuticals Ltd. et al. v. Apotex, Inc. et al. (D. Del. and PTAB) (Hatch-Waxman litigation concerning a treatment for bacterial conjunctivitis containing moxifloxacin).
Kaneka Corp. v. Xiamen Kingdomway Group Co., et al. (C.D. Cal. and Fed. Cir.) (patent dispute concerning Coenzyme Q10 products).
Siemens Logistics LLC v. Pteris Global (USA) Inc. et al. (W.D.N.C) (patent dispute concerning high-speed baggage diverters at airports).
MercAsia USA, Ltd. v. 3BTech, Inc. (N.D. Ind. and PTAB) (patent dispute concerning electronic wine dispensers and aerators).
General Electric Co. v. TransData, Inc. (PTAB) (patent dispute concerning electric meters).
InBAC, Inc. v. Environmental Systems Products, Inc. (N.D. Cal.) (patent dispute concerning vehicle emissions testing equipment).
CA, Inc. v. Ingres Corp. Del. Ch. Ct.) (breach-of-contract dispute concerning ongoing support obligations arising out of the divestment of software assets).
JuxtaComm Technologies, Inc. v. Open Text Corp. et al. (E.D. Tex.) (patent dispute concerning enterprise content management software).