Raymond N. Nimrod

I'll research this attorney's background before drafting.

Let me verify the specific tracked cases and background details.

Raymond N. Nimrod — Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (New York)

Focus areas. Nimrod is a patent litigator whose practice centers on life sciences and technically demanding industrial/electrical technologies. He is Co-Chair of Quinn Emanuel's Global Life Sciences Practice, and Chambers USA (Intellectual Property: Patent – New York, Band 3) describes him as handling complex patent trials and appellate work for pharmaceutical and technology clients. Reported matters cluster in: biologics and biosimilars (aflibercept/EYLEA, subcutaneous pembrolizumab/QLEX), Hatch-Waxman ANDA litigation (CANCIDAS, NuvaRing, insulin glargine, ZEGERID OTC), CRISPR-Cas9 gene editing, hyaluronidase/enzyme technologies, and — outside pharma — silicon carbide MOSFETs, white LEDs, and polyolefin/ethylene-oxide catalyst chemistry. His docket is not a SEP/Wi-Fi standards practice.

Side preference. He works both sides. Chambers states he "represents both plaintiffs and defendants in patent infringement actions," and the tracked list is an even split (1 plaintiff, 1 defendant). In practice the split is client-driven rather than NPE-driven: he has prosecuted innovator-pharma and university cases (Merck, The Broad Institute, Dow, Union Carbide, Cree) and defended biosimilar entrants (Samsung Bioepis against Regeneron). There is no indication of NPE/PAE-side representation.

Firm and notable matters. All tracked appearances are at Quinn Emanuel, where he has practiced for the span covered by public profiles (Super Lawyers lists him as licensed in New York since 2007); I found no reliable source describing earlier firms. Most prominent tracked work: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd., where he was lead counsel for Samsung Bioepis in the aflibercept MDL (N.D. W. Va.) and related PTAB challenges — Regeneron obtained a preliminary injunction that the Federal Circuit affirmed in January 2025, and the parties later stipulated to dismissal in February 2026 with the injunction vacated after settlement. He also appears in the Merck–Halozyme dispute (MDASE hyaluronidase patents / subcutaneous pembrolizumab), which spans roughly a dozen PGR petitions, a New Jersey district court action, and UK and German proceedings; note that public filings show Quinn Emanuel acting for Halozyme in the PTAB and UK matters, while the tracked entry labels this appearance plaintiff-side, so that designation should be verified against the specific docket. Other verifiable results from his reported career include the Broad Institute CRISPR interference wins (PTAB Interferences Nos. 106,048 and 106,115, plus a March 26, 2026 PTAB decision on remand confirming Broad's eukaryotic CRISPR patents; Federal Circuit affirmances), a $153M Union Carbide v. Shell verdict affirmed on appeal, a $107M Dow v. Nova Chemicals judgment, a 25-year ITC exclusion order in Dow/Rohm & Haas v. Organik Kimya affirmed by the Federal Circuit, and a defense jury verdict invalidating the asserted Nichia LED claims in Everlight.

PTAB/IPR experience. Yes — this is a recurring part of his practice, not occasional. Chambers specifically lists PGRs/IPRs, patent interferences, and prosecution strategy; he is lead counsel in numerous IPRs (e.g., Wolfspeed IPR2022-00854, Targan IPR2024-00595 as patent owner, Samsung Bioepis IPRs against Regeneron) and led the Broad CRISPR interference work.

Bar/education. Registered to practice before the USPTO (Reg. No. 31,987) and admitted in New York. Public directories conflict on education (Best Lawyers lists a Loyola University Chicago J.D.; Super Lawyers gives the same school but a 1984 graduation date) — treat that detail as unverified rather than repeat either date.