Intellectual property
Imron Aly is an experienced IP litigator at ArentFox Schiff. Working with industry-leading clients in pharma and tech, Aly is viewed as a go-to trial lawyer specifically regarding patent infringement. Aly works on a range of IP matters including medical devices, financial trading systems and computer business methods, often dealing with highly complex cross-jurisdictional work.
Legal 500 Editorial commentary
Accolades
Chicago Elite
Mentions
Profile
Work Department
IP Litigation
Position
Partner
Career
Imron is a trial lawyer who has served as lead counsel for clients on dozens of matters, and has first-chaired more than 15 trials. Imron’s practice is focused on patent infringement litigation and he is viewed as a go-to trial lawyer. He has litigated and tried patent infringement and other IP matters related to pharmaceuticals, medical implants and devices, DNA arrays, mechanical production assemblies, computer business methods, and financial trading systems. Clients and leading industry publications describe Imron as a prepared courtroom advocate whose “tenacity sets him apart,” who “stands out for his pure advocacy skills,” and “is an untiring advocate for his clients’ cause.”
Languages
English, Hindi
Memberships
Imron is an active member for the Center for Biosimilars Advisory Board. Additionally, he is a former board member of the Chicago Committee and Metropolitan Tenants Organization.
Education
Georgetown University Law Center, JD, magna cum laude; Order of the Coif; Georgetown Journal of Legal Ethics-Senior Articles Editor, 1999
Duke University, BSE, Biomedical Engineering, cum laude, 1996
Content supplied by ArentFox Schiff
Key clients
- Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
- Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC
- Alkem Laboratories Ltd.
- Gland Pharma Ltd.
- Hikma Pharmaceuticals
- Maia Pharma
Work highlights
Leveraged claim construction to exploit potential non-infringement arguments in defense of some of the asserted claims to obtain approval for and market a generic version of an intravenous drug.
Successfully argued that claim terms were not properly defined therefore winning a judgement of invalidity, helping Nexus pursue a generic version for patients.