top of page


J.D., UNH School of Law, 1999

B.S. University of Colorado, Boulder, 1995 


Law Clerk, Judge Arthur J. Gajarsa (ret.), U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2002-2003)


District of Columbia

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 

Robert J. Scheffel

Founder and Partner

  • LinkedIn Social Icon

Before forming Dowd Scheffel PLLC, Robert was a partner at Wiley Rein LLP and a clerk for the Honorable Arthur J. Gajarsa (ret.) at the Federal Circuit.  Robert is a skilled litigator with extensive trial and appellate experience in patent litigation.  He also focuses a large portion of his practice on providing strategic counseling to clients in all aspects of intellectual property.  His counseling practice comes with an eye to litigation and focuses on how to achieve the best results for a client at the most reasonable cost.  Having spent his career involved in complex litigation, Robert knows that option is expensive and often not ideal.  That said, when necessary, Robert has the skills and experience necessary to vigorously represent the client’s interests. Through his years of practice, Robert has both jury and bench trial experience and has participated in more than 10 trials over the past 15 years. 


Robert’s practice includes all aspects of patent disputes from investigations and due diligence, through trial and appeal. He regularly assists clients in responding to subpoenas issued by district courts and the ITC. He also focuses on quasi-judicial proceedings before the Patent Office, in particular Inter Partes Reviews (“IPRs”).


Robert works with pharmaceutical companies, chemical companies, and consumer product companies to provide strategic advice and assist in implementing strategies that yield cost effective solutions.  He has represented numerous pharmaceutical companies in both litigation and strategic counseling.  He has similarly represented numerous agricultural chemical companies in litigation, counseling, labeling issues, and other areas where intellectual property and Federal Regulations (such as FIFRA) intersect.

Robert also assists smaller clients that are seeking to monetize a patent or portfolio of patents. He has extensive experience with the strategies of such efforts from both sides. 


Robert also provides advisory guidance to smaller companies looking for strategic advice at the outset of business ventures. The intellectual property piece in these early business efforts raises complicated issues and difficult decisions that can have an impact on the success of the business going forward.  Accordingly, Robert provides pragmatic advice in this area to many clients in order to help them make best use of scarce resources.

In short, Robert is a full service intellectual property attorney with diverse experience in district courts throughout the country as well as before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.  Representative jurisdictions include district courts in Delaware, Texas, California, Florida, Colorado, Illinois, New Jersey, and New York.

Education and Prior Experience

Robert attended the University of New Hampshire Law School (formerly Franklin Pierce Law Center) where he focused his studies on intellectual property law.  

After law school, worked for two years for prominent intellectual property law firms.  In 2002, Robert clerked for the Honorable Arthur J. Gajarsa (ret.) of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. While a law clerk, Robert gained a unique understanding of the Federal Circuit appellate process, the appellate court with jurisdiction to hear all appeals pertaining to intellectual property law.  Robert was also exposed to significant areas of law outside of patents including veterans’ law, Federal employment issues, and government contracts law.  After his clerkship, Robert worked for a large Washington, D.C. firm for 15 years on all aspects of intellectual property law, and focusing on patent litigation and counseling.


Prior to his legal career, Robert received a degree in Chemical Engineering and spent time consulting on mining projects in Myanmar and Chile.  

Robert has lectured at his alma mater UNH Law School, teaching pharmaceutical patent litigation.  Robert also volunteers with The First Tee, the premier organization seeking to bring the game of golf to youth across the nation. 

Professional Recognition

Robert has been recognized often by his peers as a leader in intellectual property litigation including being selected as a SuperLawyer from 2014-2017.


Representative Cases

  • Warner Chilcott, et al. v. Impax Laboratories, et al.  Represented Impax in a two-week trial in the District of New Jersey involving Doryx® (sustained release doxycycline) obtaining a ruling of non-infringement as well as securing a rare victory in a Daubert motion in which the Court ruled that Plaintiffs’ evidence did not meet the required standards.  The rulings were upheld on appeal before the Federal Circuit.


  • Eurand, Inc. et al. v Mylan Pharms. Inc., et al.  Represented Mylan in an infringement action brought by Eurand, Cephalon, and Anesta AG in the District of Delaware. The case involved the drug Amrix® (an extended release dosage form of the skeletal muscle relaxant cyclobenzaprine HCl).


  • Cadence Pharms., Inc. v. Exela Pharma Scis., LLC.  Represented Exela in Hatch-Waxman patent litigation in the District of Delaware involving IV acetaminophen through trial and appeal.

  • Alza Corp. v. Mylan Labs., Inc.  Represented Mylan through appeal in a patent infringement action brought by Alza, a division of Johnson & Johnson, in the Northern District of West Virginia. The case involved the urinary incontinence drug Ditropan XL® (sustained-release oxybutynin chloride). After a two-week bench trial the asserted patent was held invalid.  The ruling was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

  • Ortho-McNeil Pharm., Inc. v. Mylan Labs. Inc.  Represented Mylan in an infringement action brought in the Northern District of West Virginia involving the antibiotic drug Levaquin® (levofloxacin). After a more than five-week bench trial, the court found in favor of plaintiffs, ruling that Mylan had not proven by clear and convincing evidence that the patent covering the active pharmaceutical ingredient was invalid, which was upheld on appeal.

Robert’s substantial Hatch-Waxman Act patent litigation experience also includes cases pertaining to the following active ingredients:


·       Bendamustine (Treanda®)

·       Bortezomib (Velcade®)

·       Dextromethorphan/Quinidine (Nuedexta®)

·       Dutasteride (Avodart®)

·       Fenofibrate (Antara®)

·       Gabapentin (Gralise®)

·       Tolterodine Tartate (Detrol® LA)

·       Gabapentin (Gralise®)

  • Carl Zeiss Vision Int’l GmbH v. Signet Armorlite, Inc.   Represented Carl Zeiss is multiple jury trials directed to multifocal eyeglass lenses commonly referred to as progressive lenses.  The jury ultimately returned a verdict that the claims of the patent were valid and that Signet willfully infringed the patent.  The case settled post-trial, prior to appeal.

  • Bayer CropScience v. Nufarm Americas, Ltd.  Represented Nufarm in patent litigation relating to imidacloprid formulations. Robert was responsible for development of the defenses, all depositions and expert discovery.  Case settled on favorable terms after the claim construction hearing. 

  • Verizon. Represented various Verizon and Verizon Wireless entities in multi-defendant patent infringement actions in the Eastern District of Texas, Northern District of California, District of Delaware, and the Eastern District of Virginia in lawsuits pertaining to ADSL, text messaging, wireless modems, and other cellular phone features. Notable cases include obtaining a jury verdict patent invalidity and non-infringement in the Eastern District of Virginia in a case in which the plaintiff sought $140 million in damages.

  • Boyle v. Molson Coors.  Secured a victory in the District of New Jersey for Molson Coors Brewing Company (MCBC) in defense of claims of patent infringement pertaining to computer-implemented methods and systems for investors to obtain mutual funds in a foreign currency by swapping rights with a willing co-investor in another country.  The court granted MCBC’s motions for summary judgment of invalidity and non-infringement, and the case was dismissed on appeal.

  • eComSystems, Inc. v. Shared Marketing Services, Inc.  Represented patent owner in action asserting multiple patents covering systems for and methods of preparing computer-generated advertising in the Middle District of Florida.

  • Tofasco v. Atico International USA, Inc.  Represented Atico International USA, Inc. in a patent infringement action in the Central District of California.  There case related to collapsible folding chairs.  The court granted Atico’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement, which was briefed and argued by Robert.  The case settled prior to appeal.  

  • Digital Spectrum Solutions, Inc. v. Target, et al. Represented Atico International USA, Inc. and Target in defense of claims of patent infringement pertaining to digital picture frames in the Central District of California.  The court construed the claims of the asserted patent and simultaneously granted Atico’s motion for summary judgment of no literal infringement and no infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.  The case was settled subsequent to appeal.

  • Dan-Dee v. Atico International USA, Inc. Represented Atico in a copyright infringement action relating to stuffed animals. Case was settled on favorable terms for the client

  • Zuma v. Atico International, USA Inc.  Represented Atico in a patent infringement case related to folding hair brushes in the Eastern District of Virginia. Case settled on favorable terms.

  • Siemens Medical Solutions v. St. Jude Medical. Represented St. Jude Medical in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania in defense of claims of patent infringement by Siemens Medical Solutions, Inc. for patents relating to transvascular ultrasound methods and systems.  The case was settled under favorable terms.

bottom of page