A skilled intellectual property attorney with an extensive technical and business background gained from years of working in the industry.
A partner in Haug Partners’ New York office, Mr. Kurz has been counsel on numerous lawsuits before trial courts and on appeal, handling patent infringement cases, false advertising claims, and breach of contract actions concerning intellectual property rights. Many of these have been Hatch-Waxman patent infringement lawsuits representing innovator pharmaceutical companies.
Additionally, Mr. Kurz helps companies and individuals obtain and protect intellectual property rights, including by seeking patents for medical devices, computer systems, and mechanical, electrical, and process-related inventions. Clients benefit from Mr. Kurz’s years of hands-on engineering experience gained during his 17-year career prior to law school. His career includes working as a corporate engineer, during which time he was on project teams that designed and built four manufacturing plants that produced, respectively, medium density fiberboard, particleboard, gypsum wallboard, and cement fiberboard. He also spent several years in manufacturing management.
- Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC, Actavis Elizabeth LLC, Johnson Matthey Inc., Mylan Inc., Roxane Laboratories, Inc., Sandoz Inc., No. 11-3781 (D.N.J.)
- Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharm., LLC, No. 14-1736 (Fed. Cir.) (consolidated)
- Shire LLC v. Mickle, No. 10-434 (W.D. Va.)
- Shire LLC v. Sandoz Inc., No. 11-1110 (D. Colo.)
- Shire LLC v. Teva Pharm. USA Inc., No. 10-329 (D. Del.)
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Genpharm Inc., No. 07-4661 (D.N.J.)
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Apotex Inc., No. 12-1270 et al. (Fed. Cir.)
- Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. v. Apotex Inc., No. 13-1128 et al. (Fed. Cir.)
- Warner Chilcott Co. LLC v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., No. 08-627 (D. Del.)
- Warner Chilcott Co. LLC v. Teva Pharm. USA, Inc., No. 14-1439 (Fed. Cir.)
- Mission Pharmacal Co. v. Virtus Pharm., LLC, No. 13-176 (W.D. Tex.)
- Supernus Pharm., Inc. v. Actavis, Inc., No. 14-6102 (D.N.J.)
- Supernus Pharm., Inc. v. Zydus Pharm. (USA) Inc., No. 14-7272 (D.N.J.)
- Supernus Pharm., Inc. v. Par Pharm. Cos., No. 15-326 (D.N.J.)
- Kurz, Rich, and Audrey Sparschu. “Judgment Vacated under Rule 60(b)(3) Based on a Witness's False Testimony.” Haug Partners, 18 May 2021, www.haugpartners.com/article/judgment-vacated-under-rule-60b3-based-on-a-witnesss-false-testimony/.
- Kurz, Rich, and Isaac Kim. “Federal Circuit Finds Insufficient Evidence to Establish Standing to Appeal IPR Decisions in Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Inc.” Haug Partners, 21 Apr. 2021, www.haugpartners.com/article/federal-circuit-finds-insufficient-evidence-to-establish-standing-to-appeal-ipr-decisions-in-apple-inc-v-qualcomm-inc/.
- Kurz, Rich, and Nisha Gera. “Teaching Away and No Reasonable Expectation of Success Arguments Insufficient to Avoid Obviousness Affirmance by the Federal Circuit for Columbia University’s DNA Sequencing Patents.” Haug Partners, 5 Mar. 2021, www.haugpartners.com/article/teaching-away-and-no-reasonable-expectation-of-success-arguments-insufficient-to-avoid-obviousness-affirmance-by-the-federal-circuit-for-columbia-universitys-dna-sequencing-patents/.
- Kurz, Rich, and Isaac Kim. “Objective Indicia of Nonobviousness – Considered as Part of a ‘Totality of the Evidence’ Approach or a ‘Prima Facie Framework’?” Haug Partners, 4 Mar. 2021, www.haugpartners.com/article/objective-indicia-of-nonobviousness-considered-as-part-of-a-totality-of-the-evidence-approach-or-a-prima-facie-framework/.
- Kurz, Rich, and Chinmay Bagwe. “Meet and Confer Requirements Added for Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions.” Haug Partners, 15 Jan. 2021, www.haugpartners.com/article/meet-and-confer-requirements-added-for-rule-30b6-depositions/.
- Kurz, Rich, and Ali Berkin, Ph.D. “USPTO Updates Indefiniteness Standard in AIA Post-Grant Proceedings to Match Those of the District Court Under Nautilus.” Haug Partners, 8 Jan. 2021, www.haugpartners.com/article/uspto-updates-indefiniteness-standard-in-aia-post-grant-proceedings-to-match-those-of-the-district-court-under-nautilus/.
- Kurz, Rich, and Nisha Gera. “‘That's the Way the Cookie Crumbles!" Third Circuit Court of Appeals Considers Differences Between Trade Dress and Patent Protection.” Haug Partners, 2 Nov. 2020, www.haugpartners.com/article/third-circuit-court-of-appeals-considers-differences-between-trade-dress-and-patent-protection/.
- Kurz, Rich, and Bonnie Gaudette. “Induced Infringement: The Federal Circuit Addresses the Role of Skinny Labels in the Determination of Induced Infringement for ANDA Products.” Haug Partners, 15 Oct. 2020, www.haugpartners.com/article/federal-circuit-addresses-skinny-labels/.
- Kurz, Rich, and Alexander Callo. “Federal Circuit Reverses ‘Inherency’ Obviousness Ruling in Hatch-Waxman Lawsuit.” Haug Partners LLP, Haug Partners LLP, 19 July 2017, www.haugpartners.com/article/federal-circuit-reverses-inherency-obviousness-ruling-in-hatch-waxman-lawsuit/.
- Kurz, Rich, and Alexander Callo. “PTAB Grants Motion to Amend Claims in an IPR in Valeo v. Schaeffler.” Haug Partners LLP, Haug Partners LLP, 23 June 2017, www.haugpartners.com/article/ptab-grants-motion-to-amend-claims-in-an-ipr-in-valeo-v-schaeffler/.
- Kurz, Rich, and Alexander Callo. “Federal Circuit: Claims Reciting a Term of Degree Found Not Indefinite in One-E-Way.” Haug Partners LLP, Haug Partners LLP, 16 June 2017, www.haugpartners.com/article/federal-circuit-claims-reciting-a-term-of-degree-found-not-indefinite-in-one-e-way/.
- Kurz, Rich, and Jessica Sblendorio. “Supreme Court Interprets BPCIA Disclosure and Notice Provisions.” Haug Partners LLP, Haug Partners LLP, 13 June 2017, www.haugpartners.com/article/supreme-court-interprets-bpcia-disclosure-notice-provisions/.
- Kurz, Rich, and Jessica Sblendorio. “Sovereign Immunity Precludes IPR Challenge to a University of Maryland Patent.” Haug Partners LLP, Haug Partners LLP, 25 May 2017, www.haugpartners.com/article/sovereign-immunity-precludes-ipr-challenge-university-maryland-patent/.
- Kurz, Rich, and Alexander Callo. “Federal Circuit Interprets the Post-AIA On-Sale Bar.” Haug Partners LLP, Haug Partners LLP, 4 May 2017, www.haugpartners.com/article/federal-circuit-interprets-the-post-aia-on-sale-bar/.
- Kurz, Rich, and Alexander Callo . “Calculating Lost Profits in Patent Infringement Cases.” Haug Partners LLP, Haug Partners LLP, 20 Mar. 2017, www.haugpartners.com/article/calculating-lost-profits-in-patent-infringement-cases/.
- SuperLawyers New York Metro 2013-2020 Rising Stars, Intellectual Property Litigation
- Purdue University (B.S.E.E., 1990)
- Franklin Pierce Law Center (J.D., 2010) (now known as University of New Hampshire School of Law), Editor-In-Chief, IDEA: The Intellectual Property Law Review (Volume 50)
- New York
- New Jersey
- Southern District of New York
- District of Colorado
- District of New Jersey
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- Supreme Court of the United States
- Registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- American Bar Association
- American Intellectual Property Law Association
- Federal Circuit Bar Association
- Intellectual Property Owners Association, Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology Issues Committee 2018-2019
- John C. Lifland American Inn of Court
- New Jersey State Bar Association
- New York Intellectual Property Law Association
- New York City Bar