Kratz & Barry

I'll research this firm before drafting.

Let me look into the specific tracked cases and any PTAB activity.

Firm overview. Kratz & Barry LLP is a small, litigation-focused boutique founded in autumn 2017 by Timothy H. Kratz and George J. Barry III, who moved their practice out of a large international firm. It operates from Atlanta (1050 Crown Pointe Parkway, the firm's base) with additional offices in Wilmington, Delaware, and Philadelphia, both opened in autumn 2021. The named roster is very short — Kratz, Barry, R. Touhey Myer, Michael P. Hogan, and John Thallemer — placing it well outside BigLaw and more accurately described as a small trial/IP boutique. I could locate no AmLaw, Chambers, Vault, or comparable firm-level ranking; the only individual recognition that surfaced was a Delaware Super Lawyers "Rising Star" listing (2019) for Myer and his 2020 presidency of the Philadelphia Intellectual Property Law Association.

IP litigation specialty. The firm's stated core is pharmaceutical patent litigation on behalf of generic drug companies — Hatch-Waxman/ANDA (Paragraph IV) work across therapeutic areas. All three tracked matters fit that mold: tacrolimus/Envarsus XR (Veloxis v. Alkem), Valtoco nasal diazepam (Neurelis v. Strides), and one untitled ANDA matter. The broader public docket record is consistent — Delaware and New Jersey ANDA defense for Aurobindo, Biocon, Unichem, Gland, Alkem, Rubicon, and others. Beyond pharma, the firm's own materials and court filings describe work in biotechnology, medical and mechanical devices, consumer electronics, oil-field services (APS Tech. v. Vertex Downhole, D. Del.), design patents, trade secrets, and copyright. Myer, a mechanical engineer by training, also handles commercial litigation (he served as Delaware counsel in Ryanair DAC v. Booking Holdings, where a CFAA jury verdict was obtained).

Side preference. The firm is almost exclusively defense-side. The tracked dataset shows 0 plaintiff-side and 3 defendant-side appearances, and all three are Hatch-Waxman defenses of ANDA filers sued by branded plaintiffs. This matches the firm's self-description of a "particular emphasis on pharmaceutical patent litigation on behalf of generic drug companies," and its filings consistently list it as counsel for ANDA defendants. There is no evidence in the record of the firm asserting patents as plaintiff or working for NPEs/PAEs.

Notable cases and outcomes. Neurelis, Inc. v. Strides Pharma Global PTE Ltd. (D. Del., 1:26-cv-00947) is the firm's most prominent current tracked matter: Kratz signed the June 2026 Paragraph IV notice letter on Strides' behalf, and the case — involving seven Valtoco Orange Book patents — was filed July 31, 2026 before Judge Noreika and remains pending. In Veloxis Pharmaceuticals v. Alkem Labs. (D. Del., 1:24-cv-0784), Kratz served as trial counsel and the case ended in a January 13, 2026 consent judgment permanently enjoining Alkem's tacrolimus ANDA until expiration of the eight asserted patents — an adverse outcome for the client. Kratz, Barry, Hogan, and Myer also appeared for Aurobindo in the Nuplazid (pimavanserin) litigation; the district court ruled for Acadia in May 2025 on the '721 formulation patent (infringed and not invalid), with final judgment June 9, 2025, and Aurobindo's appeal proceeded at the Federal Circuit (No. 25-1875). Hogan's published bio claims additional favorable results in other matters — a Section 101 win and early settlement in APS Tech. v. Vertex Downhole, a team role invalidating the Tradjenta DPP-IV method-of-treatment patents, a Fourth Circuit affirmance and favorable settlement for intervenor Par Sterile in Hospira v. Burwell, and settlements in the Kyprolis and Brilinta Hatch-Waxman cases — though these are firm-supplied descriptions rather than independently reported outcomes.

PTAB / IPR practice. I found no public evidence of a firm-level IPR/PGR filing practice or of Kratz & Barry appearing as petitioner or patent-owner counsel before the PTAB, and no public report supports a volume figure. The IPR adjacency in the record is indirect: the Valtoco patents at issue in the Neurelis matter were previously challenged in IPRs brought by others (notably Aquestive's IPR against U.S. Patent 9,763,876 and Padagis's petition against the '786 patent), but the public materials attribute that work to different counsel. Any assertion of a significant PTAB practice for this firm would be unsupported.

Key partners. Timothy H. Kratz and George J. Barry III are the founders and practice leaders; Kratz functions as the lead trial lawyer and is the attorney of record signing Paragraph IV notice correspondence. Michael P. Hogan (Philadelphia/Wilmington) carries much of the Hatch-Waxman workload, with a prior career as a medicinal chemist. R. Touhey Myer (Wilmington) fills lead/local Delaware counsel roles. John Thallemer joined in spring 2024 after serving as Director of Intellectual Property at Hetero USA.