Philip Braginsky

Partner and Co-Chair of Intellectual Property Group and Pharmaceutical and Biologics Practice and China Practice

P 212.216.8065   F 212.216.8001

 

Philip Braginsky

Partner and Co-Chair of Intellectual Property Group and Pharmaceutical and Biologics Practice and China Practice

P 212.216.8065   F 212.216.8001   pbraginsky@tarterkrinsky.com

Philip Braginsky is co-chair of the Intellectual Property Group at Tarter Krinsky & Drogin LLP. He is also co-chair of the Pharmaceutical and Biologics and China practices. He provides clients with value creation services through intellectual property counseling, litigation and patent and trademark procurement in the life sciences, tech and financial industries.

A friend and strategic business advisor to academic and business leaders, Philip has assisted in and been responsible for the creation and success of numerous technologies and business ventures. He has founded several technology companies, sits on the boards of various for-profit and not-for-profit ventures, and is actively engaged in formulating intellectual asset strategies for many public and private companies.

Philip has been appointed an expert on intellectual property for the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), Working Group VI (Securities Interests).

Prior to joining Tarter Krinsky & Drogin, Philip was a Partner at Sills Cummis and Gross, Counsel at Scully Scott Murphy and Presser, and had previously established the intellectual property practice of a New York general practice firm.

Philip also founded and served as President/General Counsel of Flow Science, Inc., a technology transfer company, and co-founded and is presently a Director of the DD Venture Fund.

Community Involvement

Phillip is Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Lymphatic Education and Research Network.

Education
  • State University of New York at Stony Brook, B.A.
  • Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, J.D.
  • Queens College, Physics
Admissions
  • New York
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal District
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Awards and Honors
  • Six Sigma Green Belt Certified
Community Involvement

Phillip is Secretary of the Board of Directors of the Lymphatic Education and Research Network.

Languages

Fortran 77

Memberships
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • International Trademark Association
  • Association of University Technology Managers
Articles
  • Has written numerous articles in the areas of intellectual property and private equity.
Speaking Engagements
  • He is frequently invited to speak on medical device, tech and nanotechnology-related topics.
  • He was also a guest lecturer at Columbia University on Patent Law.

What I do when not practicing law
Spend time with my family, visit galleries, live music, reading and cooking.

  • I Love Sugar

    I LOVE SUGAR is much more than a candy store. The high-end retailer takes the candy we all love and delivers a magical experience. State of the art design, including custom fixtures and attention to details, is what the experiential retailer believes makes shoppers often refer to I LOVE SUGAR as "the Apple store of candy". In a trade dress and trademark infringement case brought by their competitor, It’Sugar claimed that I LOVE SUGAR infringed their trademark and the overall look and feel of It’Sugar retail stores.

News

Events

  • Key Takeaways from the Sixth Annual Best Practices in IP Conference

    The Sixth Annual Best Practices in IP Conference in Tel Aviv, which covered global best practices for issues affecting companies' IP, was another great success. Attendees benefited from top-notch educational opportunities and introductions to innovative companies.

  • IP in the Boardroom: When Does the Board Receive Warning?

    Intellectual property can present operational risks - knowledge and protocols can help.

  • IP in the Boardroom: As Company IP Value Increases, So Do Related Risks

    Although one might occasionally come across an article touching on intellectual property (IP) concerns in the corporate boardroom, not enough has been said on this topic. This is the first in a series of articles that are designed to help board members satisfy their duties of care regarding the various risks that IP often carries.

  • Patenting and the New FDA Guidance on 3-D Printing of Medical Devices

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently finalized its publication on additive manufacturing (commonly referred to as 3-D printing) for medical devices.
    According to FDA Commissioner Scott Gottlieb, the guidance is meant to "help manufacturers bring their innovations to market more efficiently by providing a transparent process for future submissions and making sure our regulatory approach is properly tailored to the unique opportunities and challenges posed by this promising new technology."

  • FDA Includes Patent Submission Date Updates in Orange Book

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently updated the Orange Book to include patent submission dates. A patent submission date is the date the FDA receives patent information from the NDA holder. For each patent that claims a drug substance (active ingredient), drug product (formulation and composition), or method of use, the FDA requires all NDA applicants to submit the detailed patent information provided for under on 21CFR314.53. Now, the dates of these submissions are being recorded and published by the FDA.

  • 2017 European Patent Office Updates

    The European Patent Office recently revised its Examination Guidelines. These Guidelines are primarily directed to the patent examiners and formalities officers of the EPO, but they are also helpful to anyone practicing before the EPO. This year the update contains a few important changes.

  • New FDA Guidance on Determining Whether to Submit an ANDA or a 505(b)(2) Application

    The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) recently published a draft guidance summarizing the differences between abbreviated new drug applications (ANDA) and 505(b)(2) applications. Both sections were added to the FD&C Act to provide new routes for obtaining approvals for drug applications. The guidance focuses on ANDA submissions under Section 505(j) of the FD&C Act, petitioned ANDAs under Section 505(j)(2)(C), and NDAs pursuant to Section 505(b)(2) and discusses the regulatory and scientific considerations for determining whether to file an ANDA or 505(b)(2) application.

  • License Agreement Restrictions Can Provide a Real Advantage to Patent Holders

    Generally, a patent owner's rights are exhausted after an authorized sale; the patent owner cannot sue a downstream customer who purchased an authorized patented product from a third party reseller. So how can a patent owner control the resale of a patented product?

  • Quantity - Not Quality - Counts for Patent Infringement: More Than One Component of an Invention Must be Supplied for Patent Infringement

    The U.S. Supreme Court recently held in a recent decision in Life Technologies Corp v. Promega Corp. that the "supply of a single component of a multicomponent invention for manufacture abroad does not give rise to § 271(f)(1) liability."

  • Federal Circuit Rules Software Patent for a User Interface is Patentable Subject Matter

    In the recent decision Trading Technologies International, Inc., v. CQG, Inc. et al., the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court's ruling that a software patent on a graphical user interface was patentable subject matter, and not directed to an abstract idea under Alice.

  • Implications of the FDA's Recent Guidance on the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act

    In December 2016, the FDA published an industry guidance related to the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act. This guidance offers suggestions to sponsors on the design and use of clinical pharmacology studies to support a claim of biosimilarity to a reference product.

  • Protecting Against Big Pharma's Tactics for Delaying Market Entry of Generics

    Branded companies make millions of dollars each day that a generic version of a drug is held from the market.

  • Brexit and IP Rights

    On June 23rd, the UK voted to leave the European Union (Brexit).

  • Legal Alert: A New System For International Design Protection

    Design patents continue to grow in importance for many industries. If your company designs tangible products or packages, there is a new, efficient way to seek international protection for design features.

  • Legal Alert: .SUCKS is Here: Can Your Brand Be Protected?

    With the goal of fostering public commentary, the new domain name .SUCKS was approved by ICANN. Despite objections from some in the IP community, the sunrise period for .SUCKS is now open; it runs until May 29th.

  • Legal Alert: Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank's Effect on Business Method Patents

    The patent landscape has changed regarding business method patents.
    In the summer of 2014, the Supreme Court issued a decision in Alice Corp. v. CLS Bank which invalidated certain business method patents related to finance. The basis for the invalidation was that the patents covered an abstract idea not eligible for patent protection.

  • Beware of the Boilerplate Series: "Defend, Indemnify and Hold Harmless"

    Many agreements include an indemnification clause typically using language like this: “Party A will defend, indemnify and hold harmless all claims, losses and damages against Party B related to its use of the Technology.”

  • Beware of the Boilerplate Series: Defining Confidential Information

    In Non-Disclosure Agreements, there is often boilerplate language that includes trade secrets in the definition of “Confidential Information.” This seemingly innocuous language can lead to problems for the owner of the trade secrets.

  • Beware of the Boilerplate Series: Limitation of Liability

    Be wary of giving up your rights for "lost profits." In most jurisdictions, there are two types of "lost profits": (1) those arising from general damages (recovery of money that a party agreed to pay under a contract); and (2) those arising from consequential damages (recovery of money lost based on other business arrangements). The first is generally easier to prove, but often a party in breach can be reasonably expected to pay the second.

  • Beware the Boilerplate Series: Always Define the Meaning of "Intellectual Property"

    Clearly define the grant provisions of all of your IP contracts. If you want to transfer or receive "intellectual property" or "technology," ensure that these terms are well defined and unambiguous. Definitions matter! By making the contract terms clear, you can potentially reduce (or eliminate entirely) future litigation costs.

Education
  • State University of New York at Stony Brook, B.A.
  • Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law at Yeshiva University, J.D.
  • Queens College, Physics
Admissions
  • New York
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal District
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York
Awards and Honors
  • Six Sigma Green Belt Certified
Languages

Fortran 77

Memberships
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • International Trademark Association
  • Association of University Technology Managers
Articles
  • Has written numerous articles in the areas of intellectual property and private equity.
Speaking Engagements
  • He is frequently invited to speak on medical device, tech and nanotechnology-related topics.
  • He was also a guest lecturer at Columbia University on Patent Law.

Philip Braginsky

Privacy Policy

We have updated our privacy policy. Click here to view.

I agree