Teagan focuses his practice on complex civil litigation, with an emphasis on intellectual property and licensing disputes and antitrust disputes. He has litigated patent cases across a range of fields, including biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, and medical and mechanical devices. Teagan has represented clients in proceedings under the BPCIA and the Hatch-Waxman Act.
Teagan was born and raised in Newark, Delaware and graduated magna cum laude from the University of Delaware in 2009. He received his J.D., magna cum laude, from the University of Michigan where he was a Clarence Darrow Scholar and an editor of the Michigan Law Review.
Teagan joined Williams & Connolly in 2013, after serving as a law clerk to the Honorable Gregory M. Sleet of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. He is a member of the firm’s Hiring Committee.
- Unclaimed Property and Due Process: Justifying “Revenue Raising” Modern Escheat, 110 Mich. L. Rev. 319 (2011)
Though all cases vary and none is predictive, Teagan’s experience includes:
- Counsel for Genentech in connection with BPCIA biosimilar litigation and related proceedings regarding its Avastin product.
- Counsel for defendant Jazz Pharmaceuticals in litigation alleging certain conduct was anticompetitive.
- Counsel for manufacturer in patent litigation relating to flow cytometry products.
- Counsel for biopharmaceutical company in patent litigation relating to protein A chromatography products.
- Representation of individual in Title IX proceedings, resulting in a finding of not responsible.
- Counsel for defendant AstraZeneca in brand v. brand patent litigation involving Calquence® (acalabrutinib).
- Counsel for pharmaceutical company in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving an anti-cancer medication.
- Counsel to a venture-backed medical device company in confidential arbitration over a dispute involving the interpretation of a Warrant Agreement.
- Part of the trial team that defended an international pharmaceutical company from a $60 billion antitrust claim alleging a so-called “reverse payment” patent settlement. The case was the first of its kind to go to trial, and to date the only of its kind to go to verdict. The jury’s verdict for the defense was affirmed on appeal.