• Member, Advisory Board, Samaritan Inns, a D.C.-based nonprofit organization offering highly successful intensive recovery programs and transitional living for those struggling with homelessness and addiction
• Chair, Board of Directors, Brainerd Lakes Rowing Club
• Lecturer in Law, University of Chicago Law School, 2000-2002

• Under Steffen’s leadership, the firm’s nationwide Supreme Court and Appellate Practice was named a 2021 “Appellate Group of the Year” by Law360
• Repeatedly named by his peers in Best Lawyers in America and Washington, D.C., Super Lawyers
• Named an American Lawyer “Litigator of the Week” runner-up for his Federal Circuit victory holding that generic drug makers may be sued for patent infringement only where they are incorporated or submitted their FDA application to launch a generic
• Recognized by Law360 for prevailing in one of “The 10 Biggest Patent Rulings of 2020”
• Several cases, including U.S. Supreme Court victories, featured in several National Law Journal “Appellate Hot Lists”
• Ranked among top appellate lawyers nationwide by The Legal 500 U.S. from 2014 to 2019
• Recognized twice by Law360 as a “Legal Lion”—in 2019 for his unanimous Supreme Court victory in Teva v. Helsinn, which held that confidential sales trigger the Patent Act’s on-sale bar; and in 2014 for his victory in a leading Federal Circuit case involving the intersection of patent and antitrust law
• Honored with Managing IP’s 2019 Impact Case of the Year Award
• The National Law Journal’s “40 Under 40—Washington’s Rising Stars” list 

Representative Experience

U.S. Supreme Court Experience:

• Gonzalez v. Google LLC (pending) — Counsel for respondent Google LLC in Supreme Court’s first case involving the meaning of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, involving whether an interactive computer service acts as a “publisher” when it displays third-party content of potential interest to individual users based on users’ past activity.
• Twitter, Inc. v. Taamneh (pending) — Counsel for Google LLC in case involving scope of liability for online platforms under the Anti-Terrorism Act.
• Sanofi-Aventis US, LLC v. Mylan, Inc. (pending) — Counsel for respondent Mylan in case involving whether certain exclusive pharmaceutical contracts violate the Sherman Act.
• Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi (pending) — Counsel for amicus curiae Viatris Inc. in case involving the enablement requirement of Section 112(a) of the Patent Act.
• Jack Daniel’s Properties v. VIP Products (pending) — Counsel for amici curiae American Crafts Spirits Association, American Distilled Spirits Alliance, The Beer Institute, The Brewers Association, Distilled Spirits Council of the United States, and Wine Institute in case involving whether “humorous” trademark infringement is subject to traditional likelihood-of-confusion analysis under the Lanham Act.
• National Pork Producers Council v. Ross (pending) — Counsel for amicus curiae U.S. Chamber of Commerce in case involving dormant commerce clause challenge to California law that penalizes imports of out-of-state products based solely on the way they were produced in other states.
• Haaland v. Brackeen (2022) — Counsel for Robyn Bradshaw, grandmother and adoptive parent of P.S. (Child P) in trio of cases involving challenge to constitutionality of Indian Child Welfare Act.
• Lowery v. Joffe (2022) — Counsel for respondent Google LLC in case challenging validity of cy pres class action settlement under Rule 23.
• Animal Science Prods. Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharm. Co. Ltd. (2022) — Counsel for respondent pharmaceutical companies in case involving whether courts may rely on principles of international comity in dismissing Sherman Act cases where the foreign defendants’ conduct is compelled by foreign law.
• Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC (2022) — Counsel for amicus curiae Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. in case involving question whether a generic drug manufacturer may be held liable for induced infringement where its FDA-approved label carves out all of the language that the brand manufacturer has identified as covering its patented uses.
• Kennedy v. Bremerton School District (2022) — Counsel for eight current and former NFL players in case involving the question whether a public high school football coach’s practice of offering a prayer at midfield after the game ends is “government speech” for purposes of the First Amendment.
• Adir International, LLC. v. Starr Indemnity & Liability Co. (2021) — Counsel for petitioners in due process challenge to California insurance law prohibiting private parties from using untainted insurance proceeds to defend themselves against claims brought by the state.
• Cedar Point Nursery v. Hassid (2021) — Counsel for amicus curiae U.S. Chamber of Commerce in case involving question whether the uncompensated appropriation of an easement that is limited in time effects a per se physical taking under the Fifth Amendment.
• David Ming Pong v. United States (2021) — Counsel for petitioner in case involving whether an appeals court reviewing a cold criminal trial record may determine that an error at trial was harmless by applying an “overwhelming evidence of guilt” test that considers only the potential effect of the error on the government’s case and not on the defense.
• Governor of Delaware v. James R. Adams (2020) — Counsel for petitioner; successfully defeated standing in case challenging, on First Amendment grounds, Delaware’s requirements for a politically balanced judiciary.
• Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland, GMBH v. Mylan Pharms. Inc. (2020) — Counsel for respondent in case involving attempted Appointments Clause challenge to Patent Trial & Appeal board ruling; successfully defeated certiorari.
• Helsinn Healthcare S.A. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc. (2019) — Counsel for respondents, prevailing 9-0, in case holding that the “on-sale” bar provision of the Patent Act, as amended by the America Invents Act, is triggered by all offers for sale and sales, including those that do not publicly disclose the claimed invention.
• Hillman v. Maretta (2013) — Counsel for respondent. Obtained 9-0 ruling that the law governing the $824 billion federal life insurance program preempts state laws that conflict with employees’ “unfettered freedom of choice” in naming beneficiaries.
• Caraco Pharm. Labs. Ltd. v. Novo Nordisk A/S (2012) — Counsel for petitioner. Prevailed 9-0 in ruling enabling generic drug makers to obtain injunctions requiring competitors to correct information filed with the FDA that misstates the scope of their patents.
• Sandoz Inc. v. Amgen Inc. (2017) — Successfully represented drugmakers as amici curiae in case involving whether a biosimilar drug maker’s notice of commercial marketing under the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act must await FDA approval of the drug.
• FERC v. Electric Power Supply Ass’n — Represented 14 major utilities as amici curiae in case involving whether FERC may regulate the price paid by operators of wholesale markets to market participants who reduce consumption during peak demand.
• Panasonic Corp. v. Samsung Elec. Co., Ltd., SD-3C v. Oliver (2015) — Counsel for petitioners in cases involving timeliness, under Clayton Act’s four-year limitations period, of competitor’s and indirect purchasers’ challenges to joint venture’s patent-pooling agreements.
• Mutual Pharm. Co. v. Bartlett (2013), PLIVA, Inc. v. Mensing (2011) — Counsel for eight generic drugmakers as amici curiae; advocated prevailing position that the Hatch-Waxman Act preempted state law failure-to-warn and defective design claims against generic drug manufacturers.
• Home v. USDA (2013, 2015) — Counsel for National Federation of Independent Business and various other business amici in two rounds of litigation involving the Takings Clause; advocated prevailing position in both phases.
• Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Bd (2010) — Counsel for CATO Institute as amicus in successful challenge to the constitutionality of the Public Company Accounting Oversight Board as a violation of the separation of powers.
• Pacific Bell Tel. Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc. (2009) — Counsel for Abbott Labs as amicus curiae; advocated prevailing position that Section 2 of the Sherman Act does not recognize “price squeeze” claims where the defendant has no antitrust duty to deal with the plaintiff in the wholesale market.
• Philip Morris USA v. Williams (2007) — Counsel for National Association of Manufacturers, PhRMA, and other business amici; advocated prevailing position that procedural due process precludes a jury from imposing punitive damages to punish the defendant for harm to nonparties.
• Holmes v. South Carolina (2006) — Counsel for 18 states as amici curiae. Obtained ruling that clarified validity, under the Sixth Amendment, of the amici states’ evidentiary rules on admission of third-party guilt evidence.
• Sprietsma v. Mercury Marine (2002) — Counsel for respondent in case involving preemption of products liability claims under Federal Boat Safety Act.
• Mitchell v. Helms (2000) — Counsel for petitioners; obtained decision overruling prior law and sustaining the constitutionality of neutrally providing computers and other educational materials to religious schools.
• Public Lands Council v. Babbitt (2000) — Counsel for petitioners in case challenging interpretation of Taylor Grazing Act regulations.
• American Mfrs. Mut. Ins. Co. v. Sullivan (1999) — Counsel for petitioners; obtained ruling that private insurance companies were not state actors for purposes of utilization review decisions under state workers’ compensation law.

Experience in the Federal Courts of Appeals:

• Universal Secure Registry v. Apple Inc., Visa Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2021) — Counsel for respondents Visa Inc. and Visa U.S.A. Inc.; successfully invalidated several patents on Section 101 grounds.
• Celgene Corp. v. Mylan Pharms. Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2021) — Counsel for Mylan Pharmaceuticals et al. in Hatch-Waxman case successfully challenging venue in state where none of defendants reside or have regular and established places of business.
• Valeant Pharms. N.A. LLC v. Mylan Pharms. Inc. (2020) — Counsel for Mylan Pharmaceuticals et al.; prevailing in Hatch-Waxman case holding that infringement occurs for venue purposes only in districts where actions related to the submis-sion of an Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) occur, not in all locations where future distribution of the generic products specified in the ANDA is contemplated.
• ChargePoint, Inc. v. SemaConnect, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019) — Counsel for leading manufacturer of electric vehicle charging stations in defense of Section 101 challenge to subject-matter eligibility of several patents.
• Cox Communications, Inc. v. BMG Rights Mgmt. (4th Cir. 2018) — Counsel for leading internet service provider (ISP) in first circuit decision to address standards for secondary copyright infringement liability by ISPs. Obtained reversal of $33 million judgment.
• Globus Medical, Inc. v. DePuy Synthes Prods., LLC (Fed. Cir.) — Counsel for spinal implant manufacturer in appeal of $16 million patent infringement verdict; favorably settled after argument.
• Core Labs. LP v. Spectrum Tracer Servs. (Fed. Cir. 2016) — Counsel for holder of patents on hydraulic fracturing in challenge to PTAB decision invalidating patents.
• Sukumar & Southern Cal. Stroke Rehab. Assoc., Inc. v. Nautilus, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2015) — Counsel for exercise equipment design company in first Federal Circuit case involving “competitive injury” requirement of the qui tam provision of the America Invents Act.
• Mutual Pharm. Co. v. Tyco Healthcare (Fed Cir. 2014) — Counsel for generic drug maker in appeal involving two antitrust doctrines that complement patent law: the “sham litigation” exception to Noerr-Pennington immunity and the “Walker Process fraud” doctrine.
• Aevoe Corp v. AE Tech, Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2013) — Counsel for owner of a patent on touch screen protectors for electronic devices. Obtained ruling dismissing case for lack of jurisdiction and citing the “benefit of oral argument” in reversing prior decision.
• Aventis Pharma S.A. v. Hospira, Inc. (Fed Cir. 2012) — Counsel for generic drug maker. Obtained first post-Therasense Federal Circuit decision sustaining a finding of inequitable conduct by patentee.
• Caraco Pharm. Labs., Ltd. v. Forest Labs., Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2008) — Counsel for generic drug maker. Obtained ruling that a unilateral “covenant not to sue” does not end a controversy between a patentee and a competitor if the covenant does not concede non-infringement.

Select Publications

• Co-author, “Ten Keys to Getting the Most Out of Your Moot Court,” Bloomberg Law, October 5, 2020
• Steffen has published extensively in both academic journals and the popular press. His scholarly articles have appeared in publications including Constitutional Commentary and the Boston College, Notre Dame, and Minnesota law reviews. His op-eds have appeared in several newspapers, including The New York Times, Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Washington Times, and The National Law Journal.