Chad A. Landmon

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Let me dig into his firm history, FDA case, and education.

Chad A. Landmon — patent litigation summary

Focus areas. Landmon is a life-sciences patent litigator whose practice is built around Hatch-Waxman/ANDA and Paragraph IV disputes, with substantial FDA regulatory work layered on top (marketing and pediatric exclusivity, Orange Book patent listing, bioequivalence, labeling/skinny-label issues, citizen petitions, and BPCIA biosimilars). He chairs Polsinelli's Hatch-Waxman & Biologics Practice and works on pharmaceuticals, biologics, medical devices, and human-tissue products — including nasal sprays, ADHD and diabetes drugs, and pain products. His earlier career also covered mechanical, electrical, and consumer-products patent cases (power tools, lighting, printing and packaging). He also handles the antitrust/patent intersection, particularly pay-for-delay settlement and exclusivity disputes, plus Lanham Act false-advertising matters. There is no indication of Wi-Fi/standards-essential or NPE/PAE work.

Side preference. He predominantly represents challengers — generic and follow-on drug manufacturers — rather than brand owners. His client history includes Watson/Actavis, KVK-Tech, MSN Pharmaceuticals, Norwich Pharmaceuticals, Padagis, Alvogen, Ranbaxy, Mylan, and Purepac. The tracked appearances (3 plaintiff / 1 defendant, all in the Padagis–Neurelis dispute over midazolam nasal spray) reflect that posture: ANDA filers often sue first for declaratory judgment while simultaneously defending the parallel infringement case, so a single party can show up on both sides. These are operating companies, not patent assertion entities — so "plaintiff-side" here does not mean NPE prosecution. The counts are also narrow: all four tracked entries trace to one dispute (including its IPR counterpart), so they are a weak basis for broad conclusions about his overall mix.

Firm context and credentials. Landmon is a shareholder in Polsinelli's Washington, D.C. office; he moved there from Axinn, Veltrop & Harkrider, where he spent most of his career (joined around 2001, promoted to partner in 2008, and later co-chaired the IP practice and chaired the FDA practice group). Some directory bios (e.g., Concurrences) still display the older Axinn practice description alongside a Polsinelli listing and appear stale. Admitted in Connecticut (1999) and the District of Columbia (2009), with admissions to the Federal Circuit, D.C., Fourth, and Sixth Circuits; J.D. with honors, University of Connecticut School of Law (1999), B.A. summa cum laude, University of Connecticut (1996).

Notable matters, outcomes, and PTAB. He argued Watson Laboratories, Inc. v. Sebelius (D.D.C.), obtaining what FDA Law Blog and firm announcements described as the first court order requiring FDA to approve a marketing application for a drug (Actos generic exclusivity), and argued the Fourth Circuit appeal in the generic Celebrex exclusivity dispute, where the court reversed the district court and held FDA's interpretation contrary to the unambiguous statute (2014). He represented Norwich Pharmaceuticals in Salix Pharmaceuticals v. Norwich Pharmaceuticals (Fed. Cir. 2024), where the appellate court affirmed the invalidity ruling that cleared the path to market, and MSN Pharmaceuticals as intervenor in Novartis v. Becerra (D.D.C. 2025), defeating Novartis's TRO seeking to stay approval of generic Entresto. He also argued the Federal Circuit appeal in the Acadia/MSN matter decided June 9, 2025 (obviousness-type double patenting), and co-authored a Unified Patents amicus brief in MSN Pharmaceuticals v. Novartis (Fed. Cir. No. 25-225, Oct. 2025). PTAB/IPR activity is real but comparatively modest: he has appeared pro hac vice in IPRs (e.g., KVK-Tech v. Shire, IPR2017-00290/-00293) and is back-up counsel on the three Padagis v. Neurelis IPRs (IPR2025-00464/-465/-466), declaring in November 2025 that he was a provisionally recognized PTAB attorney — indicating he is not a long-registered PTAB practitioner.

Note: the "first time a court ordered FDA to approve a marketing application" characterization originates from firm press materials and FDA Law Blog as quoted in secondary coverage; the underlying docket is D.D.C. No. 1:12-cv-01344 (Judge Amy Berman Jackson).