William E. Solander - Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto

William E. Solander

Listed in Best Lawyers since 2012

William E. Solander is a partner at Fitzpatrick, Cella, Harper & Scinto and is active in all areas of the firm's litigation practice and has participated in the litigation of numerous patent disputes, including the coordination of litigation occurring on a worldwide basis.

Mr. Solander's practice has embraced a wide range of technologies including, most recently, prescription anti-psoriasis medications, protein synthesis, anti-platelet inhibitor drugs, anti-cancer drugs, polymorphs, anti-ulcer drugs, structural composites, new battery technologies, and prescription sleep aids.  Mr. Solander also counsels clients concerning noninfringement, invalidity and freedom to practice in these and other fields.

Some of the companies that he has represented or advised include Bristol-Myers Squibb, Cytec, Debiopharm, Merck, Monsanto, Novartis, Sanofi-Aventis, Sepracor and Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical.

Mr. Solander was recognized for his outstanding work in the patent category in Chambers USA 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011 and described as "a litigator with great courtroom instincts." He was listed in Legal Media Group Guide to the World’s Leading Patent Law Practitioners 2007 and was listed in IAM Life Sciences 250- The World's Leading Life Sciences Patent Litigators 2010. He was also listed in IAM 250: The World’s Leading Patent Litigators 2011. Mr. Solander was recognized in the 2011 edition of Who’s Who of Patent Lawyers. He was listed in the PLC Which Lawyer 2012 edition for IP: patent litigation. Recognized in Chambers USA 2012 as a leading individual that is “terrific – he really gets into the case, knows the science, is up to date on the law and works well with witnesses.” He was also recognized in IAM Patent 1000 2012 as a leading attorney.

California State Polytechnic University PomonaBS 1991Chicago-Kent College of LawJ.D. 1995
New York Intellectual Property Law AssociationAmerican Intellectual Property Law Association

Case History

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC et al. v. Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. et al. D.N.J. 2011 — On September 15, 2011, Fitzpatrick obtained a favorable decision on behalf
of clients Sanofi and Debiopharm S.A. in a dispute with Sun Pharmaceuticals
over the terms of a settlement agreement entered into as part of the resolution
of a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation concerning Sanofi and
Debiopharm’s blockbuster colorectal cancer drug, Eloxatin®. After multiple
generic defendants launched at risk in 2009, Sanofi and Debiopharm entered
into settlement and license agreements requiring all of them to cease selling
their generic products until August 2012. Sun contended that under the terms
of its license agreement, it was not obligated to exit the market. After a trial
in April 2011, United States District Judge Joel A. Pisano of the District of New
Jersey ruled that Sun’s license agreement required it to exit the market along
with the other defendants. The Court permanently enjoined Sun from marketing
its generic product until the launch date contained in the license agreement,
thereby preserving exclusivity for Eloxatin® until August 2012.
Sanofi-Aventis, Sanofi-Synthelabo, Inc., and Bristol-Myers Squibb Sanofi Pharmaceuticals Holding Partnership v. Apotex, Inc. & Apotex, Corp. S.D.N.Y. 2010 — On October 19, 2010 Judge Sidney Stein (S.D.N.Y.) awarded the makers of Plavix® --
Sanofi-Aventis, Bristol-Myers Squibb and their Partnership -- more than $442 million
in damages from Apotex and more than $100 million dollars in prejudgment interest.
The award, one of the largest monetary awards in patent litigation history, is
compensation for Apotex's at-risk launch of a generic Plavix® product containing the
active ingredient clopidogrel bisulfate. Following that launch in August 2006, the firm
was successful in obtaining a preliminary injunction against Apotex, a decision that
was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The firm was subsequently
successful in obtaining a permanent injunction against Apotex, following a bench trial
before Judge Stein. That decision also was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. The Firm
also was successful in defeating two requests by Apotex for reexamination of the
patent-in-suit before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC, Sanofi-Aventis, and Debiopharm S.A. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al. Fed. Cir. 2009 — Following expedited briefing and oral argument, on September 10, 2009, the
Federal Circuit reversed the District Court's June 18 decision that the generic
defendants did not infringe Sanofi's and Debiopharm's patent covering the active
ingredient of the anti-cancer drug Eloxatin®.Multiple generic defendants successfully
argued to the District Court that the compound claims of the patent in suit reciting
optically pure oxaliplatin should be limited in scope to oxaliplatin made by the HPLC
process disclosed in the patent's specification. Plaintiffs argued that HPLC was not
required by the specification or the file history, and the inventors had not disclaimed
the use of other methods to make their claimed compound. The Federal Circuit
agreed with Plaintiffs stating that the claims were to a compound, not a process,
and the inventors had not limited their claims to oxaliplatin made using the HPLC
method disclosed in the specification. The Federal Circuit vacated the decision and
remanded the case.
Sanofi-Synthelabo, et al. v. Apotex, Inc. Fed. Cir. 2008 — On December 12, 2008 in a case in which Sanofi-Aventis and Bristol-Myers Squibb
were represented by attorneys from Fitzpatrick and Cravath, Swaine & Moore, a panel
of the Federal Circuit composed of Judges Newman, Lourie, and Bryson affirmed Judge
Stein’s June 19, 2007 decision upholding the validity of the patent covering Plavix®
(clopidogrel bisulfate), one of the world's best-selling prescription drugs.

In August 2006, Judge Stein preliminarily enjoined Apotex from selling generic clopidogrel
bisulfate, and the Federal Circuit upheld that injunction on December 10, 2006. Following
a four-week bench trial, Judge Stein issued his June 19 ruling in which he credited the
testimony of sanofi witnesses and concluded that "Apotex has failed to prove by clear and
convincing evidence that the [Plavix®] patent is invalid or unenforceable and sanofi is
entitled to a permanent injunction prohibiting Apotex from further infringement."

Client Comments

"William Solander is highly intelligent, always reachable, and has excellent communication skills. He is an outstanding lawyer, is flexible and adaptable, and has the clients business in focus."

"Bill Solander is an insightful patent litigator with sound judgment who is capable of achieving effective results when solving legal and business issues."

Office Location

1290 Avenue of the Americas
New York, NY 10104-3800
United States

Practice Areas

Litigation - Patent

Other Information

Gender: Male