Dennis D. Gregory

Specialty / Focus. Dennis D. Gregory is a patent litigator whose practice centers on Hatch-Waxman / ANDA pharmaceutical litigation. He served as pro hac vice counsel for generic drugmaker Apotex against Novartis, and his Law360 profile lists him on the ANDA case Bausch Health Ireland Ltd. v. Mylan Laboratories Ltd. (W.D. Pa. 2021). He is co-author of the Practical Law practice note "Hatch-Waxman Act: Overview" (Thomson Reuters/Westlaw), and docket-tracking data associated with his name shows a docket heavily weighted toward biotech matters (roughly 46 biotech cases versus a handful of communications, software, and semiconductor matters), with modest PTAB exposure relative to district court.

Side preference. His tracked appearances are entirely defendant-side (1 defendant appearance, 0 plaintiff-side), representing generic pharmaceutical companies defending or challenging brand-name patents in ANDA litigation. Available listings (e.g., Bausch v. Mylan) are consistent with that generic-side posture, though the party he represented in that particular matter is not confirmed by the sources reviewed.

Firm context. He is at Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, listed in the firm's Austin, TX office (with a same-named attorney also appearing in the firm's New York office; the two profiles may be the same person who relocated, but that is not confirmed). No prior firms were verified from the sources reviewed. Wilson Sonsini's life sciences group is ranked Tier 1 for Hatch-Waxman Patent Litigation (Generic) by LMG Life Sciences, consistent with his practice area.

Notable cases / PTAB / credentials. The most prominent tracked matter is Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Apotex Inc., where he appeared as pro hac vice counsel for Apotex; no case outcome was verified in this search. A Super Lawyers profile for a Dennis Gregory at Wilson Sonsini's New York office lists a J.D. from Seton Hall University School of Law (2003) and New York bar admission (2004), with a 2013 Rising Stars selection — plausibly the same attorney, but the name is shared and this should be treated as unconfirmed. PTAB/IPR activity appears limited based on available data and should not be characterized as a significant component of his practice without better sourcing.