Robert Kry

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Let me verify the tracked case and check for IPR/Federal Circuit work.

Good — Arthrex is a significant find. Let me dig further.

Robert Kry — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Specialty / focus areas. Kry is a founding partner of MoloLamken whose practice is generalist trial and appellate litigation, with patent work concentrated in life sciences and PTAB administrative law rather than a high-volume patent docket. The tracked matter, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (N.D. W. Va., part of the In re Aflibercept Patent Litigation MDL), involves biologic/biosimilar formulation patents — claim construction of a four-element formulation claim under the Becton, Dickinson presumption for separately recited components. His most prominent IP work, Arthrex, was not technology-specific but implicated the constitutionality of PTAB inter partes review. Firm and directory profiles (Benchmark Litigation, Legal 500, IPWatchdog) list intellectual property among his practice areas alongside arbitration enforcement, sovereign immunity, securities, and antitrust; note that "IP" as used in those profiles appears to include trademark/copyright and general IP disputes, so the patent-specific component of his book of business is best characterized from the cases rather than the marketing descriptions.

Side preference. Overwhelmingly defense-side as an appellate specialist. His single tracked patent litigation appearance is for a defendant (Amgen), and he was also retained by Arthrex — the patent owner defending against an IPR petitioner, and the appellant challenging the agency's authority. There is no indication of NPE/PAE plaintiff-side prosecution work. This is consistent with his broader profile as a Supreme Court and appellate advocate who is retained on discrete, high-stakes issues rather than to run a patent portfolio caseload. The one-case sample is small, so treat any side "preference" as tentative.

Firm context. MoloLamken LLP (Washington, D.C., with Chicago and New York offices), which he joined at its 2009 founding after several years in the Supreme Court and appellate practice of another firm. Before that he clerked for Justice Antonin Scalia on the U.S. Supreme Court and for Judge Alex Kozinski on the Ninth Circuit. No in-house role. He is not the firm's patent practice head — that work sits with other MoloLamken partners (e.g., Jeffrey A. Lamken, who leads the firm's Federal Circuit and PTAB matters).

Notable cases and outcomes.

• Arthrex, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (Fed. Cir.) — Kry argued for Arthrex at the Federal Circuit in the 2022 remand appeal (Nos. 2018-2140 et al., decided May 27, 2022), which rejected Arthrex's Appointments Clause and Federal Vacancies Reform Act challenges to Commissioner Hirshfeld's denial of Director rehearing; the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's anticipation findings against the '907 patent. Kry was also on the MoloLamken merits and cert-stage team in United States v. Arthrex, Inc., 141 S. Ct. 1970 (2021), where the Supreme Court held APJs unconstitutionally wielded unreviewable final authority but left them removable at will and remanded for Director review — a partial win for Arthrex. (Jeffrey Lamken argued at the Supreme Court; Kry argued the follow-on Federal Circuit appeal.)
• Regeneron v. Amgen (Fed. Cir. No. 24-2351, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc.) — Kry appeared on Amgen's Federal Circuit team in the expedited appeal of the denial of Regeneron's preliminary injunction over the Eylea biosimilar ABP 938 ("Pavblu"). He filed an entry of appearance Sept. 25, 2024 but was terminated from the docket on Oct. 22, 2024, so it is not clear how much of the briefing or argument he personally handled. The Federal Circuit affirmed the denial on March 14, 2025, finding at least a substantial question of noninfringement.

PTAB / IPR experience. He is not a routine PTAB practitioner — no recurring IPR or PGR filings appear in his name. His PTAB-adjacent experience is appellate and constitutional: the Arthrex line of cases challenging APJ appointments, Director rehearing authority, and the validity of USPTO actions during Director vacancies. That is specialist appellate work rather than day-to-day Board practice.

Bar / education. Yale Law School; admitted in New York (2005) and the District of Columbia (2006); D.C. Bar No. 490545.

Caveat: the tracked case list contains only one patent litigation appearance, so this summary draws heavily on the Arthrex matters, which are patent-related but proceed from the PTAB rather than from a district court patent suit. His overall practice is broader than patent litigation — arbitration award enforcement and sovereign immunity are the areas for which directories most consistently rank him.