Shannon Lentz
Overview
Companies and innovators looking for creative solutions to complex intellectual property issues trust Shannon Lentz to think outside the box. Whether it is looking for ways to challenge or defend existing patents, or procuring new ones, Shannon has helped craft strategies that mitigate risk and maximize return on intellectual property investments.
Career & Education
- University of Maryland School of Law, J.D.
- University of Maryland, College Park, B.S., molecular biology and genetics
- District of Columbia
- Maryland
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Shannon's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.01.25
Hatch-Waxman PTE for Reissue Patents Should Be Calculated From the Original Patent’s Issue Date
On March 13, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision about Patent Term Extensions (PTEs) under the Hatch-Waxman Act for reissue patents. In Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (No. 2023-2254), the Court confirmed that the PTE provision under 35 U.S.C. § 156 refers to the original patent’s issue date, not the reissue patent’s issue date. Thus, the issue date of the original patent should be used when calculating the extension period.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 03.24.25
USPTO Finds Claims of Two of Moderna’s mRNA Patents Unpatentable: What’s Next in the Vaccine Wars?
Client Alert | 4 min read | 03.11.25
Client Alert | 2 min read | 01.11.24
Enabling Practitioners: USPTO Issues Guidelines for Assessing Enablement Post-Amgen
Representative Matters
- Representing LifeNet Health in a five-patent case against Surgalign (f/k/a RTI Surgical) involving soft tissue grafts and spinal implants, successfully defending LifeNet Health’s patents against IPR petitions filed by Surgalign.
- Represented inventors in a highly contested patent inventorship bench trial in the Central District of California and subsequent appeal to the Federal Circuit involving a pharmaceutical compound.
- Moderna v. CureVac: Represented patent owner CureVac in inter partes review before the PTAB relating to purification of RNA.
- Apotex v. Amgen, IPR2016-01542 (PTAB): Represented petitioner Apotex in an inter partes review successfully invalidating a patent relating to Neupogen® and Neulasta®.
- LifeNet Health v. Life Cell Corp., No. 2:13-cv-00486 (E.D. Virginia): Represented plaintiff LifeNet in patent-infringement action involving soft-tissue grafts. Jury awarded LifeNet over $34 million; decision affirmed on appeal.
- Represented university system in patent license dispute over cancer treatment in which the plaintiff pharmaceutical company sought damages exceeding $200 million. Obtained summary adjudication in favor of client.
- Secured a significant victory (a preliminary injunction against patent infringement through trial) on behalf of Lonza Walkersville, Inc. against Israel-based Adva Biotechnology Ltd. in a case involving point-of-care cell-therapy technology.
Shannon's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.01.25
Hatch-Waxman PTE for Reissue Patents Should Be Calculated From the Original Patent’s Issue Date
On March 13, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision about Patent Term Extensions (PTEs) under the Hatch-Waxman Act for reissue patents. In Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (No. 2023-2254), the Court confirmed that the PTE provision under 35 U.S.C. § 156 refers to the original patent’s issue date, not the reissue patent’s issue date. Thus, the issue date of the original patent should be used when calculating the extension period.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 03.24.25
USPTO Finds Claims of Two of Moderna’s mRNA Patents Unpatentable: What’s Next in the Vaccine Wars?
Client Alert | 4 min read | 03.11.25
Client Alert | 2 min read | 01.11.24
Enabling Practitioners: USPTO Issues Guidelines for Assessing Enablement Post-Amgen
Insights
Shannon's Insights
Client Alert | 4 min read | 04.01.25
Hatch-Waxman PTE for Reissue Patents Should Be Calculated From the Original Patent’s Issue Date
On March 13, 2025, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit issued a decision about Patent Term Extensions (PTEs) under the Hatch-Waxman Act for reissue patents. In Merck Sharp & Dohme B.V. v. Aurobindo Pharma USA, Inc. (No. 2023-2254), the Court confirmed that the PTE provision under 35 U.S.C. § 156 refers to the original patent’s issue date, not the reissue patent’s issue date. Thus, the issue date of the original patent should be used when calculating the extension period.
Client Alert | 4 min read | 03.24.25
USPTO Finds Claims of Two of Moderna’s mRNA Patents Unpatentable: What’s Next in the Vaccine Wars?
Client Alert | 4 min read | 03.11.25
Client Alert | 2 min read | 01.11.24
Enabling Practitioners: USPTO Issues Guidelines for Assessing Enablement Post-Amgen
