Human beings are capable of extraordinary things. Nicholas Groombridge, one of the nation's leading trial lawyers, is no exception. In his intellectual property and patent law practice, Groombridge’s work focuses on some of the most prominent people impacting our modern world. His practice spans a variety of technical areas, from medical devices to consumer electronics, pharmaceuticals and beyond.
Groombridge is continually inspired by his clients – people making ground-breaking creations, world-changing discoveries and industry-shifting contributions. His job is to protect those creatives, their work, their voices. To clear the mess and quiet the noise so that their brilliance can be heard, built upon and rightfully compensated.
If there’s one thing Groombridge has learned over the course of his deservedly decorated, 35-year career – it’s the power and importance of speaking up.
Take for example, his clients at a small Canadian company called Acuitas, whose years of research and development led to huge breakthroughs when the world really needed it recently in the form of a vaccine for Covid-19. The company developed a lipid nanoparticle technology that made RNA vaccines possible. But wait, why haven’t we all heard of this company? Groombridge led the charge for Acuitas as they sought credit for these crucial inventions; the patent case settled last year on undisclosed terms.
Groombridge discovered intellectual property and patent law early on in his career, when an entry position at an IP firm catapulted him onto the front lines of a major case. It was sink or swim for Groombridge, and the swimmer never looked back.
Since then, Groombridge has over 150 federal district court patent cases under his belt and has argued more than 30 cases in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. His career is massive, filled with major wins and storied verdicts and the work continues to ignite the passionate advocate. So much so that he cofounded Groombridge, Wu, Baughman & Stone two years ago, where and he and his partners have continued to have great success with impactful cases.
Groombridge represented the brilliant minds at Edwards LifeSciences, who worked to create replacement heart valves – tiny devices with huge, life-saving implications. Groombridge was lead counsel in a jury trial resulting in a favorable $390M verdict that went on to pave the way for a settlement of over $1B.
“These devices have gone on from strength to strength – they are an amazing technology,” says Groombridge. “I think of many lives saved and I feel very privileged to work with people who have made these kinds of contributions.”
Groombridge himself may be too humble to acknowledge that he too belongs on the list of extraordinarily impactful humans, right alongside his most impressive clients. A quick glance of the litigator’s outstanding track record will confirm his rightful placement among the greats.
Groombridge was inducted as Lawdragon Legend in 2021.
Lawdragon: How did you decide to become a lawyer?
Nick Groombridge: I grew up in a house where there was a running battle between the arts and the sciences. My mother studied and taught languages, and my father taught chemistry. And there was a constant goodhearted but genuine debate about which was better. I think a big part of what attracted me to law was that it was neither of those. So it was a way to not pick a side. I was interested in logic and thought processes, and it seemed to me like lawyers had a chance to influence things in society. In the English system, you had to make a decision when you were still quite young – 16 years old. Law is an undergraduate course of study in the UK, so I went off to law school at the age of 18.
Lawyers always want to control what the witnesses say, and I came to the conclusion that these scientists were going to say what they were going to say. The teachable moment for me was to let people be themselves.
LD: How did your practice come to intellectual property?
NG: After I finished law school, I traveled and eventually ended up in New York where I got a job as a temporary paralegal. I had a law degree, but I wasn't qualified as a lawyer, and I got sent off on my first, and what turned out to be only, assignment at an IP boutique. I walked in the door in February of 1984 on a one-week assignment and ended up being there for 17 years – I worked my way up. I worked as a paralegal for a few years and evidently they liked the work enough that they offered me a job as an associate and eventually I became a partner in that firm.
LD: What led you to start your own firm?
NG: A group of us from Paul, Weiss left and founded our own firm. In part, we wanted a little more freedom to experiment with pricing legal services and ways to perform legal services. In large law firms, the pathway to promotion traditionally is very tightly controlled for a variety of reasons – we didn’t want that at our firm. The first thing we did upon founding the new law firm was to promote two people to partner, both of whom are women. Now our partnership is majority women. My goal in this law firm is to provide opportunity for others and help others build their careers.
We started at 23 lawyers and we’re at 37 now. It’s been a pretty significant percentage in only two years. We often debate whether there is a “right” size. If there’s business there to support it and the organization is not having negative effects from growth, then we'll keep growing. We consciously don't want to grow too fast because that can create issues of integration and maintaining quality.
LD: Over the course of your career, is there a case that stands out as a favorite?
NG: I did a case in 2006, where we represented an entity called Yeda, which is the licensing arm of the Weizmann Institute in Israel, a very accomplished science university. I refer to it as “the MIT of Israel.” It was a very dramatic inventorship case about a patent that was very important for a drug called Erbitux – which had gained notoriety as the drug that was involved in the Martha Stewart insider trading scandal.
A group of researchers in Israel headed by a very senior and distinguished immunologist had come up with a discovery that turned out to be very significant – you could make the argument that it was the basis for a lot of modern cancer care. They'd written up a manuscript to publish, and that manuscript made its way to the patent department of the biotech company, and somehow they used it to file a patent application but didn't tell the folks in Israel about it or include them as inventors. So this patent application gets filed, takes 13 years in the patent office and then it emerges. These people find it and that results in this huge litigation about who actually invented it.
It was a big case, about a three-week trial, with a packed courtroom every day. A lot of hedge funds were following the case, they realized that this could move the stock. There were people coming in because of the Martha Stewart connection. The whole thing was an intergenerational conflict. The older man was a Greatest Generation figure – a very famous scientist, a very extraordinary and very generous man. The younger person was his protégé who had taken his idea. I don't think there was any bad intent, but it was a situation that spiraled out of control – essentially a master versus a pupil situation.
In the end, we won. The judge issued a 120-page decision that found in our favor on essentially every contested issue, saying that our witnesses were much more credible than the defendants. It was formative for me because it was really a “he said, she said” case. And one of the questions was – how do you present witnesses? Lawyers always want to control what the witnesses say, and I came to the conclusion that these scientists were going to say what they were going to say. I had to learn to get over it, and not try to tightly script it.
We beat back a challenge to the fundamental patent on the Ozempic molecule, called semaglutide. We defeated a challenge on a patent that is probably a candidate to be the most valuable patent there is. That was extremely satisfying.
I realized I needed to let them tell their stories. Now I always tell witnesses that everyone makes mistakes and people understand that. I need them to be authentic and if I think there's a misunderstanding or that they misspoke, I'll fix that. But if they come across as fake, or as a jerk, I can't fix that. We leaned into that and we got a resounding victory. The teachable moment for me was to let people be themselves. That’s something I learned in that case that has served me well many years since.
LD: That is such a great lesson.
NG: Another case that stands out for me was for a client called Edwards LifeSciences – they make replacement heart valves. They insert a catheter, usually through an artery in your thigh, and put in a replacement heart valve so you don't have to have open heart surgery – which is massively invasive.
These valves were hugely successful and Edwards really invested and pioneered it and brought it to market. Then a large medical device company was also in the field, and they got into a knock-down, drag-out patent dispute that went on for about seven years. We had a couple of trials and appeals. Finally we tried the second one of the trials, which I did, we were the plaintiff and we got something like a $390M verdict which in turn led to a settlement for more than a $1B.
I remember the doctor who did the first one of these procedures in a human being. No one had ever done this, and he had had this idea. He had taken it around to about a dozen companies that had all told him it was impossible. So he worked with some people to set up a startup company to make it happen. I asked this doctor how he was able to do this after everyone told him it was impossible. He simply looked at me and he said, “I wasn't willing to see my patients die.”
I was so humbled by that. This man is so fiercely determined, he invented the procedure. Just had that unwavering sense of purpose. That was to me, so great. And these devices have gone on from strength to strength – they are an amazing technology. A tiny valve that can fit through a tube that's a few millimeters in diameter and is deployed and then it can be part of your heart for the next 15 years – literally hundreds of millions of beats. It works. It's astonishing that that's even possible. I think of many lives saved and I feel very privileged to work with people who have made these kinds of contributions.
LD: What's currently on your docket?
NG: Well, because it's public, I can tell you that we represent Novo Nordisk on the patents that relate to what everyone calls Ozempic. We have done several legal proceedings for them. We have three that are active right now. It's a category of drug that is transformative. They set out to treat diabetes, but it turned out that there's a favorable cascade of other health benefits. They didn't set out to treat obesity per se, but they found out that these were very good for treating obesity. It turns out that these drugs also have beneficial effects in lots of other ways – like reducing heart disease, reducing serious liver disease and they may even reduce incidences of Alzheimer's.
We’re dealing with something that, in terms of public health, makes a big difference, so working with them is great. We beat back a challenge to the fundamental patent on the Ozempic molecule, called semaglutide. We defeated a challenge on a patent that is probably a candidate to be the most valuable patent there is. That was extremely satisfying.
LD: What can you tell us about your work with Riverkeeper?
NG: I consider myself a member of the environmental movement. Clean water is really fundamental – something that is very important for society. I live in the Hudson Valley, which many consider to be the cradle of the modern American environmental movement. There’s Riverkeeper and other organizations like Clearwater and Scenic Hudson that were born of the 1960s environmental battles there. Riverkeeper is an organization that I'm very proud to be associated with. It’s a feisty organization – one that will say, “We'd like to work with you, but if you do bad stuff, we'll sue you.”
It's a very hands-on organization. There are a lot of nonprofits where if you're going to be on the board of directors, they expect that you come to three or four meetings a year and write a check. Riverkeeper is not like that. The expectation is that we roll up our sleeves and get actively involved. And that appeals to me. Without passing judgment on anything political, we are clearly in a phase where environmental protections are going to be probably rolled back in some way. And so I think we're saying there's going to be a lot of work to do over the coming years.
LD: Are you involved in helping them draft legal challenges to legislation?
NG: Yes, or deciding whether we should bring a lawsuit or not. I'm the head of the litigation committee for Riverkeeper, and the staff will present a situation where we should maybe get involved. And you've got to choose the things to prioritize, because we’re a small organization with finite resources. There are laws that say that in New York City, people, and particularly people living in disadvantaged communities, should have access to the waters around New York for recreation and for mental health – and someone has to safeguard that. There are a number of communities in Hudson Valley who actually draw some of their drinking water from the Hudson. So you need to protect the quality of that water. Those are the kinds of decisions that we're making. And we’re lucky that the staff of the organization does phenomenal work.
LD: What advice do you have for young associates?
NG: I want to find really smart people to work with who are coming into the profession – but you get no benefit from their cleverness if they're not able to articulate it. So I would say, don't be afraid to speak up. If you have an idea, articulate it. Don’t interrupt people or talk over them, but find a way to make your voice heard, and don't be discouraged if your idea is rejected. I want you to bring me ideas – but know that nine out of 10 of them won't go anywhere. That’s part of the process. It's inherent in a brainstorming environment, most of the things that get said aren't actually going to bear fruits. That doesn't mean you shouldn't be saying them. You absolutely should.
