Photo of Ian Hurst

Ian Hurst is an associate in the Litigation Department. His practice focuses on complex intellectual property matters, particularly patent litigation in the life sciences. He recently advised one of the world’s largest biotechnology companies in a patent infringement action concerning the launch of a biosimilar to Stelara® (ustekinumab), a blockbuster biologic with annual sales close to 10 billion dollars.

As a law student, Ian worked on all stages of patent prosecution and helped clients obtain protection for life science, medical device, and computer technologies. He also drafted appellate briefs on behalf of clients and as amicus curiae, co-drafted a petition for a writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court, and argued before the D.C. Circuit.

Before law school, Ian worked across many disciplines in the biomedical sciences. He worked with a consulting firm advising global pharmaceutical companies on research and development, a basic science lab investigating novel small-molecule therapeutics, and a health technology group directing clinical trials. His work has been presented at national conferences and published in leading academic journals, including New England Journal of Medicine Catalyst and ACS Chemical Neuroscience.

A parent corporation is typically not held liable for the acts of a subsidiary. As such, disregarding the corporate form (i.e., by piercing the corporate veil) and holding the parent liable is an extraordinary remedy. That said, if a parent company exercises enough control over a subsidiary, however, courts may hold the parent liable. Because there is often some degree of overlap between a parent and its subsidiary, a question courts are often faced with is just how much control is enough to justify imposing liability on a parent for its subsidiary’s actions?