Who's Who Legal
Who's Who Legal
New to Who's Who Legal?
New to Who's Who Legal?
Menu
User Menu
New to Who's Who Legal?
Nicholas Groombridge

Nicholas Groombridge

Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP1285 Avenue of the AmericasNew YorkNew YorkUSA10019-6064

Global Leader

WWL Ranking: Recommended

WWL says

Nicholas Groombridge is "an exceptional attorney and a leader in the field" who has over 30 years of experience as a patent litigator. ​

Biography

A partner in the litigation department at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Nicholas Groombridge focuses exclusively on intellectual property litigation matters. Over the past 30 years, Nick has been extensively involved in all aspects of patent litigation, including trials (both bench and jury). He has been lead counsel in over 150 patent infringement actions in federal district courts and has successfully argued more than 30 cases in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Nick has litigated patents in a wide variety of technical areas, including software, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, wireless networking, consumer electronics, specialty chemicals, automotive parts, financial services and medical devices. He is a frequent speaker on developments in patent law and has taught courses on patent litigation at both Columbia Law School and NYU School of Law.

Nick has received many professional accolades. He is ranked in Chambers Global and Chambers USA as a “band 1” practitioner for intellectual property: patent. Chambers describes him as “an incredibly good trial attorney who takes the time to master every detail of a case and dominates the courtroom with his knowledge of both the law and the facts”. The Legal 500 has described him as “a top-notch patent trial lawyer” and “an excellent strategic adviser”, who has “a unique understanding of the way people think and an ability to get a message across”. He has been named a “national litigation star” for intellectual property by Benchmark Litigation, one of the Lawdragon “500 leading lawyers in America”, “outstanding IP litigator” by Managing Intellectual Property and an expert in patent law in the Guide to the World’s Leading Patent Practitioners and The Best Lawyers in America.

Nick is active in several professional societies including the Federal Circuit Bar Association, of which he is a past president.

Representative cases include BlackBerry v Twitter, as lead counsel for Twitter in a case involving patents asserted by BlackBerry against various aspects of the social media platform. He obtained a ruling on motion to dismiss invalidating four of the seven asserted patents as ineligible under Section 101; Biogen v Bayer Healthcare, et al, as trial counsel for Biogen in a multi-billion-dollar patent dispute involving recombinant beta interferon. He obtained a judgement in favour of Biogen on all liability issues following a five-week jury trial, with a damages trial yet to be scheduled; Amgen v Sandoz, as lead counsel for Amgen in trial and appellate proceedings in the first case alleging infringement under the Biosimilars Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), the statute providing for biosimilar versions of biologic therapies. He obtained a landmark ruling interpreting the statute; Boston Scientific v Edwards Lifesciences, as trial counsel for Edwards in a multi-jurisdiction litigation involving transcatheter heart valve technology; he obtained a worldwide settlement resulting in 8 per cent increase in Edwards’ stock price; Word To Info v Google, as trial counsel for Google in a case involving infringement allegations against Google’s search and machine learning technologies. The case was settled after a favourable claim construction ruling; Silver State Intellectual Technologies v Garmin, as trial counsel for Garmin in a case involving navigation devices. He obtained a complete defence verdict including invalidity of all four asserted patents following a three-week jury trial in Las Vegas; Edwards Lifesciences v Medtronic, as trial counsel for Edwards in a patent dispute involving transcatheter heart valve technology. He obtained a verdict of infringement and US$394 million damages. Together with related matters, this case subsequently settled with payments to Edwards totalling approximately US$1.1 billion; Pacing Technology v Garmin, he obtained a summary judgment of non-infringement in a case involving Garmin fitness products; General Electric v Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, as trial counsel for GE in a patent dispute involving wind turbine technology. He obtained a verdict of infringement and US$170 million damages; CheckFree v Metavante, as lead counsel for CheckFree and Fiserv in a patent dispute between market leaders in providing electronic payment solutions to the banking industry; Triangle Software v Garmin, as trial counsel for defendant Garmin in five patent cases involving portable navigation devices. He obtained favourable verdicts on three patents. The jury hung on the remaining two patents and the trial court granted JMOL of no infringement. The resulting judgment for Garmin was affirmed by the Federal Circuit; and Commil v Cisco and Aruba, as trial counsel for Aruba Networks in a case involving enterprise wireless technology. The plaintiff settled with Aruba on favourable terms after opening statements.

Patents 2020

Professional Biography

WWL Ranking: Recommended

WWL says

Nicholas Groombridge wins glowing praise from respondents who effusively deem him “an exceptional attorney” and “a leader in the field”. 

Biography

A partner in the litigation department at Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison LLP, Nicholas Groombridge focuses exclusively on intellectual property litigation matters. Over the past 30 years, Nick has been extensively involved in all aspects of patent litigation, including trials (both bench and jury). He has been lead counsel in over 150 patent infringement actions in federal district courts and has successfully argued more than 30 cases in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Nick has litigated patents in a wide variety of technical areas, including software, semiconductors, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, wireless networking, consumer electronics, specialty chemicals, automotive parts, financial services and medical devices. He is a frequent speaker on developments in patent law and has taught courses on patent litigation at both Columbia Law School and NYU School of Law.

Nick has received many professional accolades. He is ranked in Chambers Global and Chambers USA as a “band 1” practitioner for intellectual property: patent. Chambers describes him as “an incredibly good trial attorney who takes the time to master every detail of a case and dominates the courtroom with his knowledge of both the law and the facts”. The Legal 500 has described him as “a top-notch patent trial lawyer” and “an excellent strategic adviser”, who has “a unique understanding of the way people think and an ability to get a message across”. He has been named a “national litigation star” for intellectual property by Benchmark Litigation, one of the Lawdragon “500 leading lawyers in America”, “outstanding IP litigator” by Managing Intellectual Property and an expert in patent law in the Guide to the World’s Leading Patent Practitioners and The Best Lawyers in America.

Nick is active in several professional societies including the Federal Circuit Bar Association, of which he is a past president.

Representative cases include BlackBerry v Twitter, as lead counsel for Twitter in a case involving patents asserted by BlackBerry against various aspects of the social media platform. He obtained a ruling on motion to dismiss invalidating four of the seven asserted patents as ineligible under Section 101; Biogen v Bayer Healthcare, et al, as trial counsel for Biogen in a multi-billion-dollar patent dispute involving recombinant beta interferon. He obtained a judgement in favour of Biogen on all liability issues following a five-week jury trial, with a damages trial yet to be scheduled; Amgen v Sandoz, as lead counsel for Amgen in trial and appellate proceedings in the first case alleging infringement under the Biosimilars Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), the statute providing for biosimilar versions of biologic therapies. He obtained a landmark ruling interpreting the statute; Boston Scientific v Edwards Lifesciences, as trial counsel for Edwards in a multi-jurisdiction litigation involving transcatheter heart valve technology; he obtained a worldwide settlement resulting in 8 per cent increase in Edwards’ stock price; Word To Info v Google, as trial counsel for Google in a case involving infringement allegations against Google’s search and machine learning technologies. The case was settled after a favourable claim construction ruling; Silver State Intellectual Technologies v Garmin, as trial counsel for Garmin in a case involving navigation devices. He obtained a complete defence verdict including invalidity of all four asserted patents following a three-week jury trial in Las Vegas; Edwards Lifesciences v Medtronic, as trial counsel for Edwards in a patent dispute involving transcatheter heart valve technology. He obtained a verdict of infringement and US$394 million damages. Together with related matters, this case subsequently settled with payments to Edwards totalling approximately US$1.1 billion; Pacing Technology v Garmin, he obtained a summary judgment of non-infringement in a case involving Garmin fitness products; General Electric v Mitsubishi Heavy Industries, as trial counsel for GE in a patent dispute involving wind turbine technology. He obtained a verdict of infringement and US$170 million damages; CheckFree v Metavante, as lead counsel for CheckFree and Fiserv in a patent dispute between market leaders in providing electronic payment solutions to the banking industry; Triangle Software v Garmin, as trial counsel for defendant Garmin in five patent cases involving portable navigation devices. He obtained favourable verdicts on three patents. The jury hung on the remaining two patents and the trial court granted JMOL of no infringement. The resulting judgment for Garmin was affirmed by the Federal Circuit; and Commil v Cisco and Aruba, as trial counsel for Aruba Networks in a case involving enterprise wireless technology. The plaintiff settled with Aruba on favourable terms after opening statements.

Law Business Research
Law Business Research Ltd
Meridian House, 34-35 Farringdon Street
London EC4A 4HL, UK
© Law Business Research Ltd 1998-2020. All rights reserved.
Company No.: 03281866