Marshall, Gerstein & Borun

I'll research the firm before drafting.

Firm overview. Marshall, Gerstein & Borun LLP is a Chicago-headquartered intellectual property boutique, founded in 1955 and based since the mid-1990s in the Willis Tower (233 S. Wacker Drive). It maintains a second office in Raleigh, North Carolina, and describes itself as "Chicago's largest intellectual property boutique," with more than 100 attorneys, patent agents, and technical specialists as of its October 2025 70th-anniversary announcement — a headcount that has grown from roughly 80–90 professionals over the past decade. It is a single-discipline IP firm, not an AmLaw-ranked general-practice firm. Its rankings activity is in the specialist guides: Chambers USA (Illinois, intellectual property), Legal 500 "Chicago Elite" for intellectual property, and IAM Patent 1000, plus a 2025 "Chicago IP Law Firm of the Year" award from Legal Insider. Roughly 90% of its professionals hold science or engineering degrees, and nearly half have prior in-house, technology-transfer, or industry experience.

IP litigation specialty. The tracked matters are both biologics/pharmaceutical cases, and that is the practice's clear center of gravity. The firm's litigation group has tried Hatch-Waxman ANDA cases, BPCIA biosimilar disputes, and life-sciences patent and trade-secret matters, and its client roster includes Amgen, Baxter, CureVac, Medela, Procter & Gamble, AbbVie-opposed Amgen entities, Illumina, and university/technology-transfer clients. Its own practice description claims broader coverage spanning electronics, wireless and mobile communications, semiconductors, internet/e-commerce, mechanical and industrial technologies, and medical devices; IAM Patent 1000 credits the group with pharmaceutical, medical device, semiconductor, computer/Internet, automotive and metals experience. Notably absent from the record reviewed is any Wi-Fi/standards-essential-patent practice, which is a notable gap compared to SEP-focused boutiques.

Side preference. The tracked dataset is a dead 1–1 split: one plaintiff-side appearance and one defendant-side appearance. Read together with the firm's practice description — which says it handles "cases brought by non-practicing entities" as well as "bet-the-company litigation between fierce business competitors" — this is not an NPE/PAE enforcement shop or a pure defense shop. It behaves like an innovator-side firm that generally represents the party holding the asserted patent (Amgen, CureVac) but is fully willing to defend operating companies when its clients are the accused infringers (the aflibercept MDL). Because the tracked sample is only two cases, treat the 50/50 figure as directional rather than statistically meaningful.

Notable cases. The most prominent tracked matter is Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Amgen Inc., part of the consolidated aflibercept MDL (In re Aflibercept Patent Litigation, No. 1:24-md-03103, N.D. W. Va.). Marshall Gerstein is Amgen's counsel in that MDL — John R. Labbé (lead trial counsel and liaison counsel), Kevin M. Flowers, and Thomas R. Burns all appear pro hac vice — and the firm helped defeat Regeneron's motion for a preliminary injunction; the Federal Circuit affirmed in a precedential March 2025 decision holding Regeneron was unlikely to show Amgen's Pavblu/ABP 938 formulation infringed the asserted '865 formulation patent. The other tracked case, Amgen Inc. v. Sandoz Inc. (plaintiff side, Kevin M. Flowers as lead counsel), is listed in the firm profile but I could not independently confirm the specific docket or Marshall Gerstein's role via the public sources reviewed; note that Flowers also represented Sandoz (then Geneva Pharmaceuticals) in the Claritin ANDA litigation, so the Amgen/Sandoz pairing appears in both directions. Beyond the tracked list, the firm's own published results include: a jury verdict for Amgen against Hospira in the first BPCIA case tried to a jury (firm accounts cite damages "in excess of $70 million," with one firm release saying $80 million; the Federal Circuit affirmed); Amgen's Epogen wins against Roche and against Hoechst Marion Roussel/TKT; a summary-judgment defense win for Illumina against Life Technologies; and $740 million in CureVac's August 2025 global settlement with Pfizer/BioNTech over mRNA patents.

PTAB / IPR practice. The firm markets a post-grant practice covering IPR, CBM, PGR, supplemental examination, reexamination, and reissue, and states it has been "a national leader in implementing post-grant proceedings." Verifiable public examples include the Canfield Scientific matters, where the firm filed three IPRs that invalidated all asserted Quantificare claims and the Federal Circuit affirmed; and Schott Gemtron Corp. v. SSW Holding Co., where all challenged claims survived an IPR. It has also filed IPRs in insurance/financial-services disputes. I could not locate a reliable public count of the firm's PTAB petition volume, so any scale figure would be unsourced. Key litigation partners: Kevin M. Flowers (Ph.D., life-sciences trial lawyer; Amgen's long-time Hatch-Waxman/BPCIA lead), John R. Labbé (life sciences, Hatch-Waxman and BPCIA), Mark H. Izraelewicz (led CureVac's U.S. litigation strategy), Thomas Duston (30-plus years as lead counsel in 60-plus patent matters; Legal 500 Chicago Elite), and Thomas R. Burns (made partner in 2025, pharma/biotech patent litigation). Heather R. Malkowski appears in the tracked docket data as a Marshall Gerstein attorney, but I did not find a published partner profile for her in the sources reviewed.