Benjamin C. Hsing Partner

Ben is a patent litigator with nearly 30 years of experience enforcing patent rights in the life sciences industry who focuses on Hatch Waxman Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) litigation. An accomplished trial lawyer, Ben has tried numerous high-profile cases on behalf of major pharmaceutical and technology companies. He was a U.S. patent examiner from 1986 to 1990.

Ben is well-versed in U.S. Patent and Trademark Office proceedings and assists clients in post-grant and contested patent office proceedings. He also conducts intellectual property due diligence investigations in connection with acquisitions and licensing deals. Ben is deeply involved in his clients’ matters, ensuring that he understands all aspects of their businesses and cases so that he can identify, dissect and solve potential challenges facing his clients.

According to Chambers USA 2014, Ben is a “favorite of high-profile branded drug companies.” Chambers USA 2018 describes Ben as “a very detail-oriented attorney.”  He is an active member of the legal community and frequently speaks on topics involving intellectual property and litigation.

Ben is fluent in Mandarin Chinese.

Experience

Achieved a total claim construction victory in a Hatch-Waxman action relating to the drug Sprycel for treating chronic myelogenous leukemia. The court adopted proposed constructions for all 15 terms in dispute. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Apotex Inc. (D. N.J.)

Successfully defeated an ANDA challenge in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware for pharmaceutical clients concerning Tarceva for treating non-small-cell lung cancer. After a five-day bench trial, the court ruled that the two patents covering Tarceva and its use were not invalid. OSI Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (D. Del.)

Won a favorable jury verdict for a French multinational pharmaceutical company in a suit against a pharmaceutical company in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. The jury confirmed the validity of the Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH patent for Tarka and awarded $16 million in damages. Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland GmbH, et al. v. Glenmark Pharmaceuticals Inc. USA, et al. (D. N.J.)

Served as co-lead counsel for a French multinational pharmaceutical company in an infringement suit on a patent covering the antihypertensive drug Ramipril. Summary judgment of infringement was entered against the defendants. After a two-week trial, the court ruled that the patent was valid and enforceable. This victory was selected as a Noteworthy Case by The National Law Journal for its 2006 Defense Hot List. Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH, et al. v. Lupin Pharmaceuticals Inc., et al. (E.D. Va.)

Served as co-lead counsel for an American multinational biotechnology firm in a patent infringement suit. Permanent injunction was entered against the defendants. Chiron Corp. v. SourceCF Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.)

Served as co-lead counsel for the plaintiff, a French multinational pharmaceutical company, in an infringement suit against a Canadian pharmaceutical company on patents related to the antihypertensive drug Ramipril. Aventis Pharma Deutschland GmbH, et al. v. Cobalt Pharmaceuticals Inc. (D. Mass.)

Represented the respondent, a leading Taiwanese integrated device manufacturer in the nonvolatile memory market, in a Section 337 proceeding at the U.S. International Trade Commission against a charge brought by a semiconductor manufacturer that the client infringed a patent covering semiconductor chips. After a two-week hearing, the administrative law judge ruled that the patent was unenforceable and not infringed. In the Matter of Certain EPROM, EEPROM, Flash Memory, and Flash Microcontroller Semiconductor Devices and Products Containing Same (U.S. Int'l Trade Comm'n)

Participated in the prosecution of an infringement action on behalf of a chemical company on three patents relating to catalysts for making ethylene oxide. After a three-week trial, the district court granted judgment as a matter of law in favor of the client on all validity issues, and the Federal Circuit affirmed grant of a new trial on infringement. Union Carbide v. Shell Oil Co., et al. (D. Del.)

  • The George Washington University Law School, JD, Highest Honors, Order of the Coif, The George Washington Law Review, Moot Court Board Law School, 1991
  • Columbia University, MS, Chemical Engineering, 1986
  • Columbia University, BS, Chemical Engineering, 1984
  • Columbia University, BA, 1983

Intellectual Property Owners Association

  •   - Presidential Task Force on Diversity Inclusion and Leadership

American Bar Association

Asian American Bar Association of New York: Former Board Member

American Intellectual Property Law Association

  • Mandarin-Chinese
  • Author, How the new Patent Trial and Appeal Board rules impact the practice of inter partes reviews, Pharmaceutical Patent Analyst, Vol. 5, No. 5, August 20, 2016
  • New York
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Chambers USA: Intellectual Property in New York, 2013-2019

LMG Life Sciences Star, 2014-2017

  •   - General Patent Litigation
  •   - Patent Strategy & Management
  •   - Hatch-Waxman Patent Litigation (Branded)
  •   - Patent Strategy & Management Atorney of the Year – New York, 2017
  •   - Nominated for Hatch-Waxman Branded Litigator of the Year, 2014

New York Metro “Super Lawyer”, 2006-2010, 2015-2018

Back to top