Timothy P. Best

I'll research this attorney's professional background before writing the summary.

Let me verify the notable trial results and PTAB activity.

Let me verify a couple of additional representations and PTAB matters.

Timothy P. Best, Ph.D. — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Focus areas. Best's practice is concentrated in life sciences and biotechnology patent litigation, with heavy Hatch-Waxman/ANDA work on small-molecule pharmaceuticals and biologics; his McDermott and prior Gibson Dunn practice descriptions also list medical devices, semiconductor manufacturing, computer and network security, image processing, and business methods, along with some copyright and trademark litigation. His chemistry doctorate (Caltech) aligns with chemistry-intensive subject matter — polymorphs, formulations, and synthetic molecules. The tracked docket is narrower than his stated practice: essentially every tracked appearance arises from Neurelis, Inc.'s Orange Book patents covering VALTOCO (diazepam nasal spray, e.g., U.S. Pat. Nos. 8,895,546, 11,241,414, 11,793,786 and later-issued family members) and the corresponding Padagis ANDA.

Side preference. The tracked counts split 5 plaintiff-side / 3 defendant-side, but both sides of that split come from a single brand-vs-generic dispute: he represents Neurelis as patent owner in its infringement suits (against Padagis, Lupin, and Amneal) and also appears for Padagis US in the mirror-image declaratory judgment actions. He therefore works both sides of ANDA litigation rather than functioning as a one-sided NPE/PAE or defense shop; firm materials emphasize both asserting and defending infringement claims. Within the tracked matters his roles are supporting rather than lead — back-up counsel (5), pro hac vice (1), of counsel (1), PHV counsel (1) — consistent with a second-chair/team role on those teams (Michael Sitzman is lead counsel on the Neurelis matters).

Firm context and notable matters. Best is a partner in the Los Angeles office of McDermott Will & Emery LLP, which he joined in November 2024 from Gibson Dunn & Crutcher, where he was a partner in the IP Litigation group. The two firm names in the tracked data reflect a firm name change, not a move: McDermott Will & Emery became McDermott Will & Schulte LLP effective August 1, 2025. Notable results from his Gibson Dunn period, as described by the firm (matters handled prior to joining McDermott): second-chair on the trial team that defended Pfizer and EMD Serono (Merck KGaA) against Biogen's claim for more than $5.4 billion in damages in In re Biogen '755 Patent Litigation (D.N.J.); the February 2018 jury found the patent invalid as anticipated, the district court granted JMOL overturning that verdict, and the Federal Circuit reversed in September 2020 and ordered the jury verdict reinstated (Biogen MA v. EMD Serono), with Supreme Court certiorari denied in 2021. He is also listed as counsel on the Federal Circuit's affirmance in Grünenthal GmbH v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd., 919 F.3d 1333 (Fed. Cir. 2019) (tapentadol hydrochloride polymorph), representing Assertio/Depomed alongside Grünenthal. Firm materials also describe work for Blue Belt Technologies against MAKO Surgical (robotic surgical devices; resolved by settlement following IPR challenges) and for Santaris Pharma on antisense DNA litigation. Court records show additional appearances beyond the tracked set, including pro hac vice admission in Delaware for Taiho Pharmaceutical (December 2024) and a filing in a Netlist case in the Central District of California.

PTAB / IPR experience. Best appears in AIA proceedings with some regularity, though as back-up rather than lead. He has been granted pro hac vice admission in IPR2023-00731, -00732, -00491, -00528, -00633 and -00699, and he is back-up counsel for Neurelis in the three Padagis IPRs on the VALTOCO patents (IPR2025-00464, -00465, -00466), where his declaration describes him as a "provisionally recognized PTAB attorney" — i.e., he appears in those proceedings under 37 C.F.R. § 42.10(c) rather than as a registered USPTO practitioner. Neurelis's patent owner responses in those IPRs argued discretionary denial under § 314(a)/Fintiv and § 325(d).

Bar and education. Admitted in California; also admitted before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. District Courts for the Central and Southern Districts of California. JD, University of California, Berkeley (Boalt Hall); PhD in Chemistry, California Institute of Technology; BS in Chemistry, Butler University. He teaches IP Litigation as an adjunct/lecturer at USC Gould School of Law and serves on the board of the Judge Paul R. Michel IP American Inn of Court.

Caveat: the tracked case list is limited almost entirely to the Neurelis/Padagis VALTOCO dispute, so the plaintiff/defendant split above should not be read as a general practice-wide ratio. Several notable results listed (Biogen, Depomed/Grünenthal, Blue Belt, Santaris) are matters from his prior firm and are sourced to firm biographies and published opinions rather than to the tracked docket; outcomes of some tracked Neurelis matters (e.g., the D. Del. consolidated cases) remain pending, with trial dates set into 2028 on the current schedule.