Pat Razzano has practiced intellectual property law for over 40 years, has been with Fitzpatrick since 1991 and has served on its management committee. He has served as lead trial counsel in trademark and other intellectual property matters in US District Courts for companies including Mars, Inc, Allied Signal, Canon, Sea Containers, Schering AG and Diageo N.A. He has also argued numerous appellate cases at the Federal, Second, Third, Seventh and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeals and served as a Special Master in a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.Mr. Razzano also has an extensive practice in patent and trademark counseling and licensing and is responsible for supervising the patent and trademark portfolios of several major corporations.
Mr. Razzano was selected as a top intellectual property law practitioner in every edition of Best Lawyers in America since 1995 and was named the Best Lawyers 2012 New York City Litigation -- Intellectual Property Lawyer of the Year, and for Euromoney Legal Media Group’s 2002, 2007, and 2009 editions of the Guide to the World's Leading Trademark Law Practitioners and the 2008, 2006 and 2003 editions of the Guide to the World's Leading Patent Law Experts. He is also listed in Legal 500 2007, 2008, 2011 and 2012 in Trademark Litigation and IP-Copyright-National. His biography appears in the 2006 and 2001 editions of Who's Who in America, and Who's Who in American Law, and the International Who's Who of Trademark Lawyers. He was named as a Top New York Intellectual Property Litigator in the 2006-2011 issues of Super Lawyers: New York Metro Edition. Mr. Razzano was recognized in the 2011 edition of World Trademark Review 1000 as “a very capable litigator.” He was also recognized in the 2011 edition of Who’s Who of Patent Lawyers.
The Gap Inc. v. G.A.P Adventures Inc. FA1112001419226 (Nat. Arb. Forum) 2012 — Fitzpatrick prevailed in an arbitration on behalf of Fitzpatrick client,
G Adventures (formerly G.A.P Adventures), in a domain name dispute before the National Arbitration Forum. Under
the guise of the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy,
Complainant Gap Inc. sought an order that would have required our
client to transfer its longstanding "gapadventures.com" domain name
to the Complainant. The Arbitrators dismissed the Complaint with
prejudice, agreeing with G Adventures that the NAF was not the
appropriate forum for the resolution of the parties' dispute. Rather,
the Arbitrators concluded, the domain name ownership issue should
have been raised in previously-filed, and long-running federal and
international trademark litigations that were addressing the broader
trademark and business disputes between the same parties.
M Ship Co. v. Ice Marine Ltd. Fed. Cir. 2009 — The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the award of summary
judgment of non-infringement to our client, Ice Marine. The plaintiff's patent
relates to a hull structure originally intended for reducing wave creation in the
canals of Venice. Plaintiff asserted the patent against Ice Marine's high speed
Bladerunner pleasure boats which are based on a design created by the famous
racing boat naval architect, Lorne Campbell. The first Bladerunner set the world's
record for the Round England speedboat race.
Kirsch v. Canon USA, Inc. et al. E.D. MI 2009 — After years of protracted litigation between Kirsch et al. and Canon U.S.A.,
U.S. District Court Judge Hood held plaintiffs’ patent, on summary judgment,
invalid, and the case against Canon U.S.A. was dismissed on collateral estoppel
grounds. Kirsch filed separate actions against Canon and several other defendants
alleging infringement of the Kirsch patent disclosing an “information station” which
enabled a computer to be connected to an off-the-shelf facsimile machine and a
telephone line to enable the facsimile machine to function as a printer for the
computer and, alternatively, to enable the computer to send and receive facsimiles.
Fitzpatrick attorneys obtained two favorable summary judgment decisions on issues
of willful infringement and convoyed sales damages on behalf of Canon U.S.A. In
addition, in cooperation with counsel for Xerox Corporation in a companion case
involving the same patent, Fitzpatrick attorneys assisted in obtaining a third summary
judgment finding the Kirsch patent invalid. The court subsequently denied Kirsch’s
motion to reconsider the summary judgment decision of invalidity and held that Kirsch
was collaterally estopped from continuing in its action against Canon. Accordingly, the
Court dismissed Kirsch’s suit against Canon with prejudice and entered judgment in
AstraZeneca Pharmaceuticals LP and AstraZeneca UK Ltd., v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. and Teva Pharmaceutical Industries, Ltd and Sandoz, Inc. Fed. Cir. 2009 — On September 25, 2009, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed
a summary judgment of no inequitable conduct in favor of our client, AstraZeneca
Pharmaceuticals. The patent at issue in the case covered AstraZeneca's
quetiapine fumarate atypical antipsychotic drug sold under the name Seroquel.
The Court rejected arguments that AstraZeneca had failed to disclose certain
information, or made misrepresentations, to the United States Patent and Trademark
Office during prosecution of the patent application. In particular, the Court concluded
that the evidence in the case "cannot support a finding that AstraZeneca misrepresented
or omitted material information" and that "no evidence of bad faith has been proffered."