Brian Sodikoff

Chicago Office
vCard View my profile on LinkedIn View PDF

Brian Sodikoff, national head of the firm's Patent Litigation group, advises clients on patent, trademark, copyright and trade secret matters. He devotes a significant part of his practice to complex patent litigation and has worked on all phases of cases involving a diverse array of technologies, including thermoplastic air bag covers, automated truck transmissions, DVD technology and hard disk drives.

A registered patent attorney, Brian prosecutes and secures patents, partnering with clients to design and implement customized strategies to create strong patent protection that transforms ideas into competitive business advantages. He also helps clients to develop their brands through trademark prosecution and protect proprietary information through trade secret protection.

With extensive experience litigating patents in the pharmaceutical industry, Brian has developed a strong understanding of the legal issues surrounding ANDA litigations, including the intricacies of FDA approval, exclusivity periods under Hatch-Waxman and the antitrust implications stemming from settlements.

Brian also leads the Chicago office’s IP pro bono group, which counsels digital start-up companies at the 1871 business incubator on patent-related matters.

Shown below is a selection of Brian’s engagements.

  • Representation of Apotex, Inc. in patent infringement case relating to Apotex’s proposed generic version of Azilect (rasagiline mesylate), a Parkinson’s treatment. Favorable confidential settlement reached just before trial. Teva v. Apotex, 2:11-3076 (D.N.J. 2013).
  • Representation of Apotex, Inc. in a case in which Apotex entered the market after successfully invalidating the patent on Pfizer’s billion-dollar drug Norvasc. Pfizer v. Apotex, Inc., 480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
  • Lead counsel to Strides and Agila Pharmaceuticals Inc. in a case involving generic versions of zoledronic acid-based products Zometa and Reclast. Case currently being litigated. Novartis v. Strides, et al., 2:12-cv-3967 (D.N.J.).
  • Representation of Apotex, Inc. in respect to at-risk launch of a generic version of omeprazole. Successfully dismissed claims for willful infringement, enhanced damages and anything other than a reasonable royalty. AstraZeneca, et al. v. Apotex, Inc., Case No. 1:01-cv-9351 (S.D.N.Y.).
  • Representation of Apotex, Inc. in case invalidating some claims to a generic version of brimonidine tartrate. Allergan, Inc. v. Exela Pharmsci Inc., et al. (In re Brimonidine Patent Litigation), 643 F.3d 1866 (2011).
  • Representation of Apotex, Inc. in a case involving a generic version of the billion-dollar-a-year narcolepsy drug Provigil in which, applying the stringent Therasense standard for inequitable conduct, the court found that Apotex provided inequitable conduct by clear and convincing evidence. The court also found the patent invalid and Apotex's proposed product did not infringe. This ruling opened the door for Apotex's antitrust claims, which are still being litigated. Apotex, Inc. v. Cephalon, Inc., 2011 WL 6090696 (E.D. Pa. 2011), aff'd, Case No. 2012-1417 (Fed. Cir. Apr. 8, 2013).
  • Representation of Apotex, Inc. in a patent infringement case relating to Apotex's proposed generic version of linezolid tablets, an antibiotic. Pharmacia & Upjohn v. Apotex, Inc., Case No. 1:13-cv-2034 (N.D. Ill.).
  • Representation of Apotex, Inc. in a patent infringement action asserting claims to certain methods for the manufacturing process for making a stable form of quinapril magnesium. Apotex, Inc. v. Mylan, et al., Case No. 0:12-cv-60704 (S.D. Fla.).
  • Representation of Apotex, Inc. in a case in which Alcon alleged that Apotex had infringed on its patents on its generic version of the eyedrop Patanol, with Apotex proving that most of the asserted patent claims were obvious. Alcon Research, Ltd. v. Apotex Inc., Case No. 1:06-cv-1642, 2008 WL 2905898 (S.D. Ind. 2008).
  • Representation of Sun in relation to damages stemming from the at-risk launch of a generic version of Protonix (pantoprazole). Altana, et al. v. Sun, Case No. 2:04-cv-2355 (D.N.J.).
  • Representation of Apotex, Inc. in case successfully invalidating all asserted claims to a generic version of ofloxacin, allowing the recovery of several million dollars from a posted bond for an improvidently issued injunction. Daiichi v. Apotex, Inc., 501 F.3d 1254 (Fed. Cir. 2007).


Super Lawyers Rising Stars, 2012–2013

DePaul 14 Under 40

DePaul 14 Under 40, 2013
Super Lawyers, 2014–2016


  • JD, DePaul University College of Law, summa cum laude
  • BS, Vanderbilt University

Bar Admissions

  • Illinois
  • US Patent & Trademark Office

Court Admissions

  • US District Court, Northern District of Illinois
  • US Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit



DePaul 14 Under 40

Previous Next


  • American Bar Association
  • The Chicago Bar Association


  • Spanish
Katten Websites   Careers  |  Alumni  |  Mobile Site
Contact Us   Offices  |  Media Center  |  People  |  Email
Legal Notices   Disclaimer  |  Privacy Policy  |  Attorney Advertising
Contact Us