Mark Deming is an intellectual property attorney. His practice includes patent, trademark, trade dress, copyright and trade secret law. He advises companies of all sizes regarding protecting intellectual property rights as well as litigating the same as either plaintiffs or defendants. Mark regularly appears before state and federal courts and agencies, including in the Northern District of Illinois, the District of Delaware, the Central District of California, the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Mark leads all aspects of case development, from initial assessment through discovery, motions practice, claim construction, expert witnesses, trial, and appeal. Mark is also a registered patent attorney.

Mark’s practice includes pharmaceutical and medical device patent litigation. He advises both brand-side and generic-side companies at every stage of the product development cycle, including candidate evaluation, loss of exclusivity projection, notice letter preparation, pre-litigation strategy, and post-settlement enforcement. He also regularly litigates Hatch-Waxman cases involving drug product types such as ophthalmic, solid oral, controlled release, transdermal, and topical dosage forms.

Prior to joining Polsinelli, Mark clerked for two years with District Judge Michael Schneider and Magistrate Judge John Love in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Mark has a Bachelor of Science degree in Computer Engineering from the University of Illinois Department of Electrical and Computer Engineering.

Education

  • University of Illinois (J.D., magna cum laude, with pro bono notation, 2009)
    • Dean's List; Lamet Scholar, Civil Litigation Clinic; Member & Administrative Editor, Journal of Law, Technology & Policy
  • University of Illinois (B.S., 2006)
    • Computer Engineering

Bar Admission

  • Illinois, 2010
  • Admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office, 2012

Court Admissions

  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, 2011
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of Illinois, 2012
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2013
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit, 2014

Professional Affiliations

  • Federal Circuit Bar Association

Recognition

  • Selected for inclusion in Best Lawyers in America® for Litigation - Intellectual Property, 2023-2026
  • Judicial Clerk to the Honorable Michael H. Schneider, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas, 2010-2011
  • Judicial Clerk to the Honorable John D. Love, U.S. Magistrate, Eastern District of Texas, 2009-2010
Publications
Supreme Court Hands Generics a Unanimous Win on Skinny Labels in Hikma v. Amarin
A unanimous Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and held that Amarin did not plausibly allege that Hikma’s skinny label and marketing actively induced infringement of Vascepa’s cardiovascular-use patents — a decisive win for the generic industry that affirms skinny labeling as a shield against method-of-use liability. Key Takeaways A decisive win for the generic industry. On June 4, 2026, a unanimous Court — in an opinion by Justice Jackson — reversed the Federal Circuit and held that Amarin failed to state a claim for active inducement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b). The decision affirms skinny labeling and will generally shield generic companies that properly carve out a patented indication from induced-infringement liability. The Court ruled unanimously and just five weeks after argument — a
Read More
How Skinny is Skinny Enough? Takeaways from the SCOTUS Oral Argument in the Amarin/Hikma Case
Key Takeaways The U.S. Supreme Court did not seem inclined to create a new rule for induced infringement for pharmaceuticals. Although it’s always difficult to predict the outcome based on oral argument, the questions from the Justices (and the responses from the parties) suggested that a new standard for induced infringement is unlikely to be adopted. SCOTUS appears interested in ruling on the merits. The questioning relating to inducement standards suggests that SCOTUS may be interested in weighing in on the patent merits surrounding skinny labeling. That being said, given that the case was decided on a motion to dismiss, at least one or two questions suggested that it’s possible that SCOTUS will punt on the issue and instead focus on the plausibility standard
Read More