Sarah Cork
Dr. Sarah M. Cork is an attorney in the Litigation Department and the Life Sciences Group in Proskauer’s Los Angeles office.
Her practice focuses on patent litigation in the life sciences sector, with an emphasis on pharmaceutical, medical device, Hatch-Waxman, and BPCIA matters, and she has represented both patentees and patent challengers in district courts and at the Federal Circuit. Leveraging her extensive scientific training, Dr. Cork understands her clients’ technology at a deep level. She has significant experience with all phases of litigation from pre-suit diligence through trial and appeal, including day-to-day case management, motion practice, fact and expert discovery, witness preparation, taking and defending depositions, and arguing discovery matters in court. Before joining Proskauer, she was an associate at Fish & Richardson P.C.
Prior to her legal career, Dr. Cork conducted research on neurological development and disorders. Her graduate thesis work characterized novel therapeutics for aggressive brain tumors.
At Michigan Law, she worked in the Pediatric Advocacy Clinic to obtain favorable IEP and child support arrangements on behalf of children with health concerns. She also served as an intern in the chambers of the Hon. Anthony Porcelli (M.D. Fla.).
Subscribe to all posts by Sarah Cork
When a pharmaceutical company withdraws a product from the market, the basis for the withdrawal can affect whether a competitor can commercialize a generic version of that product. A generic cannot be approved if, in the FDA’s view, the product was withdrawn for “safety and effectiveness” reasons. But how does the FDA reach that conclusion? … Continue Reading
Recent Precedential Decisions Applying Fintiv When a company is sued for patent infringement, often one early strategic consideration is whether to counterattack the patent’s validity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in a parallel post-grant proceeding such as inter partes review (IPR) or post-grant review (PGR). Although the PTAB has recently conformed certain … Continue Reading
The Orphan Drug Act provides two mechanisms by which a drug can receive an orphan drug designation for a “rare” disease: (1) if it affects less than 200,000 persons in the United States, or (2) if it “affects more than 200,000 in the United States and for which there is no reasonable expectation that the … Continue Reading
The regulation of drug prices has received significant recent bipartisan support in Congress. Democrats and Republicans in both houses have proposed approximately eighty bills relating to drug pricing over the past two years. The charts below summarize the key provisions of representative bills.[i] Although the proposed price-regulating mechanisms differ from bill to bill, the bills … Continue Reading
The prospect of genetic engineering using CRISPR (clustered regularly interspaced short palindromic repeats) and CRISPR-associated nucleases (Cas) has long been hailed as a “revolutionary” development in medicine. This technology is rapidly advancing, and several CRISPR/Cas-based drugs have entered clinical trials over the past several years. One kind of product in clinical trials is CRISPR-modified cells, … Continue Reading
Among its various attempts to regulate drug prices, the Trump administration recently sought to force pharmaceutical advertisements to disclose the wholesale acquisition cost (WAC) of certain drugs. This effort was dealt a setback in June, when the D.C. Circuit found that the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) overstepped its regulatory authority by compelling … Continue Reading
“Orphan” drug exclusivity, which is intended to reward drug companies’ investment in the development of certain drugs, might soon be harder to get—and keep. Over the past several months, Congress introduced two similar bills to amend a “loophole” in the Orphan Drug Act (ODA). On October 17, 2019, a bipartisan group of House members introduced … Continue Reading
