Stephen Haracz specializes in chemical patent matters, with particular emphasis in the areas of biotechnology, pharmaceuticals and food chemistry and processing. He has litigated Hatch-Waxman cases involving fluoxetine and paroxetine and he has substantial experience advising proprietary and generic pharmaceutical companies on a broad range of issues and strategies. Other representative litigations have involved prescription and over the counter nutritional supplements; carotenoids; nucleic acid probes and related assays; immunodiagnostic devices and related assays; wound dressings and medical devices.

Mr. Haracz is admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. He has handled numerous complex inter partes patent interferences, involving pharmaceutical compounds and related compositions and methods of treatment and prophylaxis; gene therapy; cytokines; monoclonal antibodies and related diagnostic assays; and polymerization catalysts and processes. He has argued more than twenty ex parte appeals.

Mr. Haracz has a bachelor of science degree in biology and a master of science degree in chemistry. He served as co-leader of the Intellectual Property Client Service Group from 2001 to 2007.

Select Representations

Representative Litigations

• Breckenridge Pharmaceutical v Seton Pharmaceuticals (S.D.N.Y.) Defended Seton against allegation that its sale of prescription prenatal vitamin supplement constituted patent infringement and false advertising.
• Netscape Communications v. ValueClick (E.D. Va.) Represented ValueClick against allegation that its online advertising services constituted infringement of patent covering internet "cookies."
• DSM IP Assets v. Archer Daniels Midland (N.D. Ill.) Represented DSM in action asserting that ADM's sale of astaxanthin salmon feed supplement constituted patent infringement.
• Enzo Biochem v. Sigma-Aldrich (S.D.N.Y.) Represented Sigma in action asserting that its sale of nucleic acid reagents constituted patent infringement and breach of contract.
• Zeavision v. Roche Vitamins (E.D. Mo.) Represented Roche in action asserting that its sale of zeaxanthin dietary supplement constituted patent infringement.
• GlaxoSmithKline v. Synthon Pharmaceuticals (M.D.N.C.) Represented Synthon in Hatch-Waxman litigation relating to paroxetine hydrochloride (Paxil).
• Eli Lilly v. Barr Laboratories (S.D. Ind.) Represented Barr in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving fluoxetine hydrochloride (Prozac)
• Hybritech v. Hoffmann-La Roche (C.D. Cal.) Represented Roche in action asserting that its sale of diagnostic kits constituted infringement of patent covering monoclonal antibody-based "sandwich" assays.

   

Representative Patent Interferences

• Harris, et al. v. Dobrusin. Kinase inhibitors and related pharmaceutical compositions and methods.
• Bollag v. Evans. Method of treating epithelial tumors.
• Palackal v. Resconi. Process for polymerization of olefins.
• Uchino v. Resconi. Catalysts for the polymerization of olefins.
• Eppstein v. Anderson. Gene therapy.
• Bryce v. Kligmany. Treating photoaged skin with topical retinoids.
• Higuchi v. Mitoma. PCR method.
• Mertelsmann v. Stern. Human IL-2.
• Engvall v. Galatti v. David. Sandwich assays using monoclonal antibodies.
• Staehelin v. Secher. Monoclonal antibodies to leukocyte interferon.

Bar and Court Admissions

New York, 1986

United States Patent and Trademark Office

Education

New York Law School, J.D., cum laude, 1985

Fordham University, M.S., 1982

Fordham University, B.S., 1980