Bruce Wexler is the Global Co-Chair of the Intellectual Property practice at Paul Hastings, overseeing the firm's 100-plus lawyer IP practice. Mr. Wexler is a trial lawyer with extensive experience litigating high-stakes patent cases in a range of technologies. He has represented clients as lead counsel in enforcement and defense matters involving multi-million and multi-billion-dollar drug products.
He forms close partnerships with his clients to support successful outcomes, including in their bet-the-company cases. In Hatch-Waxman Act matters, he has opposed challenges by most generic drug companies. He has helped his clients with important drug products such as Aricept®, Pradaxa®, Mirapex®, Cyltezo®, Basaglar®, Entereg®, Emend® oral and Emend® for Injection, Aciphex®, Banzel®, Gocovri®, Comirnaty®, and Opsumit®.
He is a former judicial law clerk of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where he served under Chief Judge Glenn L. Archer, Jr. He clerked for Chief Judge Archer during the Chief Judge’s preparation of influential Federal Circuit decisions including Markman v. Westview.
Mr. Wexler is also an Adjunct Professor of Law at New York University School of Law, where he teaches an advanced course in “Life Sciences and Patent Law.”
AWARDS AND ACCOLADES
- Bruce Wexler is ranked in Band 1 by Chambers Global and Chambers USA (2023) for Intellectual Property, with clients noting that he “provides solid advice, gets to the real issues quickly, and solves our problems.”
- In previous editions, Chambers has lauded him for having “a really practical approach to patent litigation” and is “really invested in what we’re trying to achieve,” “looks two to three steps ahead at all times…so we can be ahead of the game,” and “helps you to understand where to focus your litigation efforts to get the best results.” He has also been commended for being “incredibly innovative and smart,” a “litigation and trial expert at the firm” with the ability to “explain complex situations clearly to enable informed decision-making,” and having “exceptional writing skills and strong technical ability.” He was described as bringing “a certain calm to situations, acting as a voice of reason and reassurance.”
- Mr. Wexler is ranked among The Legal 500, identified as a “consummate first chair trial attorney” and “a superb writer” who “really has the complete arsenal of skills,” with clients noting his ability to strategize and synthesize complex ideas in a clear manner. Previously, The Legal 500 noted that Mr. Wexler has "extensive patent litigation experience, with strategic considerations and observations being very sophisticated and right to the point" and that he is "splendid at trial."
- Mr. Wexler is ranked as one of the world’s leading patent practitioners by The Intellectual Asset Management’s IAM Patent 1000 and has been referred to as a “wonderfully gifted lawyer” who “is phenomenally prepared- there is nobody better at digging into the facts. He is a big picture thinker with excellent presentation skills.” Recognized as an “awesomely effective trial lawyer” who operates “at a championship level” for clients, Mr. Wexler is a 2022 IAM Global Leader and ranked in the Gold band identifying him as the "crème de la crème" for Litigation by reputation and work on the most high-profile, big-ticket work from the most demanding of clients.
- Mr. Wexler led his practice to win the LMG Life Sciences’ Hatch Waxman Litigation Firm of the Year-Branded award both in 2020 and 2018. He is recognized as a 2020 Life Sciences Star and shortlisted for Litigator of the Year. Previously, Mr. Wexler was named one of the “preeminent litigators in the industry” by LMG Life Sciences Guide and has been a Life Science nominee for Litigator of the Year recognized as General Patent Litigator of the Year – New York, and his representation of Eli Lilly was also honored by LMG as Hatch-Waxman Impact Case of the Year in 2016.
- He won The American Lawyer’s 2015 Transatlantic Lawyer of the Year – IP and helped lead the team to its 2018 recognition for Transatlantic IP Team of the Year.
- Mr. Wexler is recognized as a “Litigation Star” and “National Practice Area Star” by Benchmark Litigation.
- Mr. Wexler is consistently recognized among Managing IP’s IP Stars.
- The Financial Times awarded his successful defense of the Aricept® drug franchise a “standout” notice for innovative lawyering.
- Mr. Wexler is a recipient of the Burton Award for Legal Achievement in writing.
- Chambers Global, Intellectual Property: Patent
- Chambers USA, Intellectual Property (Nationwide) and Intellectual Property: Patent (New York)
- The Legal 500 USA, Healthcare: Life Sciences
- The Legal 500 USA, Leading Lawyer, Patent Litigation
- LMG Life Sciences, Hatch-Waxman Patent Litigation and Patent Strategy & Management
- IAM Global Leaders, Global Leader
- IAM Patent 1000, Patent Litigation
- Managing Intellectual Property, IP Star (New York and United States)
- Benchmark Litigation Guide, Litigation Star and National Practice Area Star
- Lawdragon, 500 Leading Litigators in America
- The American Lawyer, Transatlantic Lawyer of the Year – IP
- New York University School of Law, J.D. (magna cum laude, Order of the Coif)
- Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, B.S. in Physics (summa cum laude, member - Sigma Pi Sigma honor society)
- Eisai Inc. v. Crystal Pharmaceutical (Suzhou) Co., Ltd.
Mr. Wexler served a lead counsel to Eisai as the petitioner defending a threat of infringement of Eisai’s lemborexant sleep drug product by successfully invalidating the patent in suit at the PTAB in a Post Grant Proceeding, on the ground of inherent anticipation.
- ModernaTX Inc. et al. v. BioNTech SE and Pfizer Inc.
Mr. Wexler currently serves as lead counsel to BioNTech defending claims of patent infringement by Moderna in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts involving the COVID-19 vaccine.
- Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. and Nippon Shinyaku Co., Ltd. v. Zydus Worldwide DMCC, et al.
Mr. Wexler served as lead counsel to Actelion, a Johnson & Johnson company, and Nippon Shinyaku in patent litigation against Zydus related to their blockbuster drug product Uptravi®, used in the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension to delay disease progression and hospitalization. After litigating through fact and expert discovery, Zydus agreed to a consent judgement that affirmed the asserted claims of the patent-in-suit are valid and enforceable, and the case was resolved with a favorable settlement for the client.
- BioNTech SE and Pfizer Inc. v. CureVac AG
Mr. Wexler currently serves as lead counsel to BioNTech in a declaratory judgment action in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia relating to threats of infringement by CureVac involving the COVID-19 vaccine.
- Allele Biotechnology and Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. BioNTech SE and Pfizer Inc.
Mr. Wexler served as lead counsel for COVID-19 vaccine developer BioNTech SE in patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California involving artificial fluorescent protein assay technology. Mr. Wexler achieved a favorable resolution of the matter on behalf of BioNTech.
- Actelion Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals. (USA) et al.
Mr. Wexler was lead counsel for Actelion, a Johnson & Johnson company, in patent infringement lawsuits in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey against Zydus Pharmaceuticals, Amneal Pharmaceuticals, and Aurobindo Pharma related to Opsumit®, a drug used to treat pulmonary arterial hypertension to delay disease progression and hospitalization. The defendants ultimately entered into consent judgments following a powerful defense of the inventors and devastating deposition examination of defendants’ experts.
- AbbVie Inc. et al. v. Boehringer Ingelheim International GMBH et al.
Mr. Wexler was lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in connection with Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA) litigation relating to Boehringer’s FDA request to market Cyltezo®, a biosimilar of Humira®. The case involved a “patent dance” with thousands of pages of detailed statements, claim construction hearings, over 90 depositions, over 20 significant discovery disputes. The matter also involved parallel IPR petitions resulting in rulings that method-of-treatment claims covering the drug product Humira® were invalid, later affirmed on appeal.
- Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GMBH & Co. KG et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al.
Mr. Wexler was lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim in Hatch-Waxman litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey, securing victories in multi-defendant litigation involving the blockbuster life-saving blood thinner used by patients at risk of stroke, Pradaxa®, resulting in walkaways from six separate generic defendants. Mr. Wexler argued and won from the bench critical Markman issues, which had significant implications for the infringement and validity issues in the case.
- Orexigen Therapeutics, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc.
Mr. Wexler represented Orexigen in a complete trial victory in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in a patent litigation relating to Orexigen’s weight loss drug Contrave® against Actavis Laboratories (now part of Teva Pharmaceuticals). At trial, Mr. Wexler successfully cross-examined the generic’s surprise fact witness who claimed to be a prior inventor and the generic’s lead expert witness after the generic sought to alter strategy the night before his testimony. The Federal Circuit affirmed the trial victory on the longest running patent, citing, among other things, Mr. Wexler’s cross-examination at trial.
- Adamas Pharma LLC v. Sandoz
Mr. Wexler was lead counsel for Adamas Pharma LLC in Hatch-Waxman litigation against Sandoz involving patents with method of treatment claims to protect Gocovri™, its flagship product and the first FDA-approved medicine for treating dyskinesia in Parkinson's disease patients receiving levodopa-based therapy, with or without concomitant dopaminergic medications. After successfully litigating into claim construction briefing, Adamas obtained a favorable settlement.
- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Mr. Wexler was lead counsel for Merck in achieving a successful outcome in a generic challenge to Entereg® (alvimopan), an innovative treatment used for post-operative ileus, a potentially deadly condition following abdominal surgery. Mr. Wexler prevailed in Markman proceedings where Teva sought to invalidate the patent based on indefiniteness.
- Arena Pharmaceuticals Inc. et al. v. Lupin Ltd. et al.
Mr. Wexler was lead counsel for Eisai and Arena in numerous generic challenges to Belviq® (lorcaserin), an innovative treatment for weight loss. After litigation into expert discovery and successful cross-examination of the generics’ experts, the case settled including stipulations of infringement.
- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Sandoz Inc. et al.
Mr. Wexler was lead counsel for Merck in achieving a complete trial victory in patent infringement litigation relating to Merck’s Emend® for Injection, an important drug for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. After a six-day bench trial, Judge Sheridan of the District of New Jersey entered judgment in favor of Merck on all aspects of Sandoz’s invalidity defenses, resulting in a successful outcome for Merck. In the course of the Court’s 80-page opinion finding in Merck’s favor, the Court noted the lack of credibility of Sandoz’s key expert witness who had been cross-examined by Mr. Wexler at trial.
- Sanofi-Aventis US LLC et al. v. Eli Lilly & Co.
Mr. Wexler was lead counsel for Eli Lilly & Co. in litigation with Sanofi regarding Eli Lilly’s request to market its insulin glargine drug product Basaglar®. Sanofi brought suit on five patents, relating to a pharmaceutical composition and injector pen device, listed in the FDA Orange Book for Sanofi’s Lantus® and Lantus SoloStar® insulin glargine products. Mr. Wexler successfully led the case through fact and expert discovery, including live-witness Markman proceedings. The case settled on the eve of trial in late 2015 with the press reporting Eli Lilly’s ability to launch Basaglar® the following year.
- Eisai v. Glenmark Generics, Ltd. et al.
Mr. Wexler was lead counsel for Eisai in litigation with five generic defendant groups involving the patents directed to a crystalline form of rufinamide, the active ingredient in Eisai’s drug product, Banzel®, an important drug in the treatment of epilepsy. After successfully litigating through fact and expert discovery, Mr. Wexler obtained a victory in Markman proceedings having significant implications for the infringement and validity issues in the case. Mr. Wexler also convinced the Court, during the final pretrial conference, to exclude certain purported testing evidence by the defendants offered in support of their invalidity defense. An hour before opening argument at trial, the case settled on favorable terms.
- Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Apotex Inc.
While district court litigation was ongoing with other generic drug companies, generic drug company Apotex filed a petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office seeking to invalidate the patent protecting Merck’s Emend® for Injection drug product. Mr. Wexler obtained a successful ruling from the PTO rejecting Apotex’s invalidity attack and refusing to institute review, and this ruling was subsequently reaffirmed on Apotex’s petition for rehearing.
- Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH et al. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals, Inc.
Mr. Wexler was lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim in this appeal involving the patent protecting Mirapex®, a key drug in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease. Mr. Wexler was hired to handle the appeal after another firm had received an adverse ruling at trial. Mr. Wexler argued and won a complete reversal from the Federal Circuit, with the Court declaring the patent to be valid. The appeal established important precedent concerning the scope of the double patenting safe harbor provision, 35 U.S.C. § 121.
- Sandoz Inc. v. Boehringer Ingelheim International GmbH et al.
Mr. Wexler was lead counsel for Boehringer Ingelheim in its counterclaim action for patent infringement against Sandoz. Mr. Wexler argued and won a preliminary injunction ruling, delivered from the bench, preventing Sandoz from launching a generic version of Mirapex®. The court was persuaded to grant the injunction on a patent that had been subject to a license and which would be expiring in several months. The Judge deciding this case in the Middle District of Florida had, in his immediately preceding patent case, refused both preliminary and permanent injunctive relief in part on the ground that the patentee had previously licensed the patent. Mr. Wexler subsequently negotiated a stipulation continuing the injunction through patent expiration.
- Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Ltd. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al.
Mr. Wexler was lead trial counsel for Takeda in two actions enforcing Takeda’s patent for its anti-insomnia drug Rozerem® against challenge by generic drug companies Teva and Watson. After two years of litigation through fact and expert discovery, Mr. Wexler obtained a favorable settlement dismissing both companies’ patent challenges.
- Eisai Co., Ltd. et al. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Mr. Wexler was lead trial counsel for Eisai in an action defending Eisai’s patent protecting Aricept®, the market leading drug for the treatment of Alzheimer’s disease, having sales of some $2 billion/year. Mr. Wexler obtained a preliminary injunction against Teva’s threatened launch of a generic version of the drug. Mr. Wexler ensured continued exclusivity of the patent through patent expiration, and successfully defended attempts by Teva to trigger and run out the regulatory exclusivity of a first-filing generic drug applicant.
- Merck & Co., Inc. v. Sandoz Inc.
Mr. Wexler was lead trial counsel for Merck in an action enforcing Merck’s patents protecting its oral anti-emetic drug product, Emend®. Mr. Wexler ultimately obtained a consent judgment for his client that included an injunction prohibiting Sandoz from infringement through patent expiration.
- Eisai Co., Ltd. and Eisai Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories and Mylan Laboratories
Mr. Wexler was co-lead trial counsel to Eisai in litigation defending Eisai’s patent covering Aciphex®, an acid reflux drug with annual US sales in excess of $1 billion. Eisai initially won summary judgment of patent validity, followed by a successful trial win on a defense of inequitable conduct. The judgments were then affirmed on appeal. The case established helpful precedent for innovator pharmaceutical companies with respect to the standards for judging obviousness of a compound patent. The case also established the benrishi-client privilege protecting from discovery communications between Japanese patent agents and their clients.
- Nycomed v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Mr. Wexler represented Wyeth (acquired by Pfizer) and Altana Pharma AG (acquired by Nycomed) in a jury trial against three generic pharmaceutical companies regarding the companies’ $2 billion per year ulcer drug Protonix®. Mr. Wexler successfully examined the inventor of omeprazole, who was also serving as an expert. The jury upheld the validity of the patent, permitting the plaintiffs to seek a damages claim of billions of dollars.
- Warner-Lambert Company v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.
Mr. Wexler represented Pfizer (Warner-Lambert Company) during a successful bench trial against Teva involving Pfizer’s formulation patent covering its highly successful cardiovascular drug Accupril®. Mr. Wexler elicited critical trial testimony from Pfizer’s formulation expert, including refutation of new evidence presented for the first time by the generic’s expert at trial. In its decision, the Court found the patent was not invalid for lack of enablement, despite the breadth of the claims.
- Seventeen Paul Hastings Partners Named Among 2024 “Leading Litigators in America” by Lawdragon - September 15th, 2023
- Paul Hastings Recognized in Managing IP’s 2023 Edition of IP Stars - July 14th, 2023
- Paul Hastings Again Recognized in the 2023 Edition of IAM Patent 1000 - July 13th, 2023
- 2022 IAM Patent 1000 Ranks More Than 20 Paul Hastings’ Intellectual Property Lawyers Across Seven Jurisdictions - July 6th, 2022
- Managing IP Magazine Illuminates Paul Hastings’ Intellectual Property Practice with 16 Lawyers Recognized as ‘IP Star’ - June 15th, 2022
- Paul Hastings Recognized by Chambers Global 2022 - February 21st, 2022
- Standout ITC Litigator Joins Paul Hastings’ Intellectual Property Practice in Washington, D.C., Accelerating IP Growth - December 1st, 2021
- Paul Hastings IP Practice Recognized as IAM Global Leaders Across Span of Offices - November 23rd, 2021
- Paul Hastings’ Intellectual Property Practice Continues Year of Remarkable Rankings with New IAM 1000 Accolades and Additional IP Stars Recognitions - July 2nd, 2021
- Paul Hastings’ Intellectual Property Practice Glows with Numerous Lawyers Ranked as 2021 ‘IP Stars' by Managing IP Magazine - June 8th, 2021
- Paul Hastings Ranked as Top Three Firm for New Rankings and Recognized for Numerous Practice Strength and Growth in Chambers USA 2021 - May 21st, 2021
- Paul Hastings’ Lawyers Recognized as 2021 Acritas Stars Across Key Practice Areas - March 24th, 2021
- IAM Global Leaders 2021 Recognizes the Paul Hastings’ IP Practice - November 23rd, 2020
- Benchmark Litigation Distinguishes Paul Hastings’ IP Practice with Top-Tier National Ranking - October 14th, 2020
- On the Heels of an IP Practice Group of the Year Award, Paul Hastings’ IP Attorneys Earn Top Rankings by LMG Life Sciences - October 1st, 2020
- Paul Hastings’ IP Practice Wins Hatch-Waxman Litigation Firm of the Year at LMG Life Sciences Awards - September 24th, 2020
- Paul Hastings’ IP Practice Receives Four LMG Life Sciences Awards Nominations - August 4th, 2020
- Bruce Wexler Talks Virtual Litigation with NYU’s Engelberg Center Live! - July 14th, 2020
- Recognition of Paul Hastings’ Top IP Litigation Practice Continues with Managing IP’s Firm Rankings - June 26th, 2020
- Paul Hastings’ IP Litigation Practice Recognized as an IP Powerhouse with 25 Rankings by IAM Patent 1000 and Legal 500 US - June 12th, 2020
- Paul Hastings Recognized in Managing IP’s 2023 Edition of IP Stars - July 14th, 2023
- Paul Hastings Again Recognized in the 2023 Edition of IAM Patent 1000 - July 13th, 2023
- Paul Hastings' IP Practice Recognized as IAM Global Leaders 2023 - December 22nd, 2022
- 15 Paul Hastings Partners Recognized in Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Litigators in America - October 11th, 2022
- Paul Hastings Recognized in Benchmark Litigation 2023 - October 11th, 2022
- Paul Hastings Recognized as US Post-Grant and Japan Foreign Patent Firm of the Year by IAM - September 27th, 2022
- 19 Paul Hastings Lawyers Ranked in 2022 IAM Patent 1000 - July 6th, 2022
- Paul Hastings Lawyers Recognized as 'IP Stars' by Managing IP - June 15th, 2022
- Paul Hastings Recognized for Legal Excellence in the Legal 500 2022 - June 13th, 2022
- Paul Hastings IP Practice Recognized by Chambers USA 2022 - June 1st, 2022
- Paul Hastings Recognized by Chambers Global 2022 - February 21st, 2022
- Intellectual Property Practice Recognized by Chambers Global 2022 - February 21st, 2022
- Paul Hastings IP Partners Recognized in IAM Global Leaders 2022 - November 24th, 2021
- Paul Hastings Intellectual Property Practice Recognized by IAM 1000 2021 - July 2nd, 2021
- Paul Hastings Intellectual Property Practice Ranked Nationally by Managing IP - July 2nd, 2021
- 2021 Legal 500 U.S. Guide Ranks Eight Healthcare: Life Sciences Practice Lawyers - June 18th, 2021
- 2021 Legal 500 United States Guide Ranks More Than Fifteen Paul Hastings’ Intellectual Property Practice Lawyers - June 17th, 2021
- Paul Hastings Recognized for Legal Excellence in Legal 500 2021 - June 15th, 2021
- Ranked Among Managing IP's 2021 IP Stars - June 10th, 2021
- Paul Hastings Litigation Practice Recognized by Chambers USA 2021 - May 28th, 2021
- New Decision Addresses Whether Transcription Error in Prior Art Supports Obviousness - August 11th, 2022
- Takeaways from Recent Implementation of China’s Patent Linkage System - September 7th, 2021
- What the Federal Circuit’s Recent Amgen v. Sanofi Decision Tells Us About the State of Enablement Law - February 19th, 2021
- How to Successfully Litigate During a Pandemic - January 13th, 2021
- Considerations for Innovator Drug Companies Regarding China’s Drug Patent Linkage System - 中国将施行药品专利链接制度——创新药企应如何应变 - December 1st, 2020
- Takeaways from China’s Proposed Regulation to Implement a Drug Patent Linkage System - October 5th, 2020
- Bruce Wexler Talks Global IP Updates with Targem Translations - May 8th, 2020
- How to Think About and Successfully Navigate Patent Eligibility After Alice, Myriad, and Mayo - December 17th, 2019
- Key Takeaways for Practitioners from the Athena v. Mayo En Banc Rehearing Petition Denial - July 15th, 2019
- Senate Judiciary Committee Passes Bill Limiting the Number of Patents for BPCIA Litigation - July 3rd, 2019
- Senate Hearing on “The State of Patent Eligibility in America”: Analysis of Viewpoints on Looming Section 101 Change - June 25th, 2019
- Five Takeaways from Combination Drug Treatment and Dissolution Range Patent Rulings in Orexigen v. Actavis - October 17th, 2017
- Conversion of Paragraph IV Certification to Paragraph III Did Not Necessarily Deprive Court of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Hatch Waxman Act Case - February 7th, 2017
- Federal Circuit Upholds Patent Eligibility of a Method of Preserving Liver Cells, Giving Guidance on Applying Section 101’s Exclusion of Natural Laws - July 7th, 2016
- The Gatekeeping Function of Patent Eligibility as Part of a More Complete Understanding of § 101 Principles - April 26th, 2016
- Federal Circuit Issues Expansive Ruling in Upholding Jurisdiction over Mylan in Delaware - March 18th, 2016
- Federal Circuit Rules Prenatal Diagnostic Patents as Patent Ineligible in Ariosa - June 15th, 2015
- Prosecution Bar in Protective Order Does Not Bar Outside Litigation Counsel from Participating in an Inter Partes Review Proceeding, SDNY Rules - August 18th, 2014
- Supreme Court Continues to Build Out Its Framework for Patent Eligibility in High-Tech and Life Sciences Sectors - July 21st, 2014
- Supreme Court Ruling in Alice v. CLS Bank Continues Framework for Patent Eligibility Set Forth in Mayo v. Prometheus - June 19th, 2014
Engagement & Publications
- Mr. Wexler’s writing has been published in numerous journals, including Forbes, Law360, IP Magazine, Managing IP, and NYU’s Journal of Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law.
- He is a regular speaker at legal seminars, including ACI’s Paragraph IV Disputes conference.
- Mr. Wexler has been quoted frequently with regard to litigation and practice developments, including in the Wall Street Journal, Bloomberg News, Reuters, The Deal and The New York Times.
- Mr. Wexler regularly provides his clients with in-house CLE presentations on a variety of topics of interest, and authors client alerts concerning important developments in the law.
- Mr. Wexler advised Congress and key stakeholders during the consideration and certain aspects surrounding the enactment of the America Invents Act.