Share Print Page







Pro Bono



Joseph Leghorn is a senior trial attorney in the IP Litigation group with a sustained record of success at all levels of state and federal courts. Over the last 32 years Joseph has represented medical products manufacturers in a variety of cases, including IP litigation. With his background in mathematics and science, he is able to make complex principles easily understood by courts and juries.

What do you focus on?

I always focus my practice on getting my client the best practical outcome. Determining the best possible outcome in each case is a multivariate exercise taking into account many factors, of which advancing a client’s business is of paramount importance. As someone who has always been curious about how things work, representing cutting edge Life Sciences clients has always excited me. The service I provide to Life Sciences companies includes licensing, contract, product liability and IP litigation.

What do you see on the horizon?

For many Life Sciences companies their IP landscape is becoming increasingly crowded, creating more barriers to entry and expensive litigation. At the same time, the Life Sciences industry is coming under increasing pressure to rein in costs. I foresee clients increasingly focused on developing strategies to quickly solve legal problems in order to reduce their overall operating expenses.

Representative Trial Experience

  • Senior trial lawyer on behalf of medical device patent holder seeking damages and injunctive relief from alleged infringer. A ten day trial in 2012 resulted in a favorable jury verdict finding the patents at issue infringed and valid.
  • Kyeremteng v. Avis Rent A Car Systems LLC, Worcester Superior Court, January 2009. Successful defense of the claim that the client engaged in racial discrimination when renting cars.
  • In re Latex Glove Litigation in New Hampshire. Lead trial counsel for Smith & Nephew AHP in a seven-week trial in Belkap County, where he presented the medical causation defense on behalf of all manufacturers. The case resulted in a defense verdict that was summarily affirmed on appeal.
  • Benedict v. Service Corporation International, Suffolk Superior Court, February 2007. Trial on damages resulting in a verdict well below the expected value and settlement demand. This case secured extensive press coverage.
  • Butler v. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc., USDC Massachusetts, May 2006. Trial resulting in a defense verdict for the manufacturer of research reagents. The plaintiff claimed she developed a cross-species infection due to the use of an allegedly contaminated reagent.
  • Boudreaux v. Cybex, Inc., Suffolk Superior Court, April 2006. Four-week trial resulting in a defense verdict. The plaintiff sought more than $4 million as compensation for injuries due to defective design of exercise equipment.
  • Eisenstein v. Conlin. 444 Mass. 258 (2005), Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 2005. Decision upholding a successful motion for summary judgment on behalf of clients in partner’s hip dispute.

Representative ADR Experience

  • Mediation of Cost Recovery Claim for Product Recall, 2007. Seeking reimbursement of both indemnity and expense costs arising out of improperly manufactured components, resulting in recovery—before instituting an action—of an amount in excess of expectations.
  • Illinois Union v. Viking Corporation, USDC Massachusetts. Successful mediation of a cost-recovery action for an amount below the expected value of the property damage claim for an alleged product failure.
  • Successful mediation of a series of cases involving Hepatitis C contaminated of an intravenous gammaglobulin product.
  • Mediations in New Hampshire of a claim involving claims regarding alleged failure of insulin pumps and infusion sets.

Representative Reported Decisions

  • Eisenstein v. Conlin, 444 Mass 258 (2005)
  • Mills v. Allegiance Healthcare Corp., 174 F.Supp 2d 1 (Mass. 2001)
  • Cortes v. Intermedics, Inc., 229 F.3d12.17 (1st Cir. 2000)
  • Holland v. Smith & Nephew Richards, Inc., 100 F.Supp. 2053 (1999)
  • King v. Collagen Corp. 983 F.2d. 1130 (1st Cir. 1993
  • Palmer v. Liggett Group, Inc., 825 F.2d 620 (1st Cir. 1987)
  • Payton v. Abbott Labs, 386 Mass. 540 (1982)

Recent Publications

  • “Moving Quickly to Endgame in Benzene Cases,” Products Liability Law 360, September 2009
  • “Putting Nanotechnology Under the Microscope,” Products Liability Law 360, August 2009
  • “Looking at the Further Preemption,” Products Liability Law 360, November 2008
  • “A New Breed of Products-Based Litigation,” Products Liability Law 360, June 2007
  • “Defending an Emergency Threat: Consumer Fraud Class Action Suit in Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Products-Based Litigation,” Food and Drug Law Journal, Vol. 61, No. 3 (2006)
  • “Gathering Storm: The Rise of the Consumer Fraud Class Action Suit and Its Impact on Pharmaceutical and Medical Device Products-Based Litigation,” For the Defense, Defense Research Institute, April 2006
  • “The Scientific Method: How to Avoid Erroneous Conclusion, Vioxx Litigation Reporter,” Mealey’s Publications, January 27, 2006


Joseph J. Leghorn,Consumer Fraud Class,Tort Reform,Consumer Products,Viking Corporation,Smith & Nephew Richards Inc.,Consumer Products Industries,Joe Leghorn,Products Liability Law,Medical Device Industry,International Association Of Defense Counsel,Racial Discrimination,Massachusetts Super Lawyer,Massachusetts Association Of School Committees,Defense Research Institute,Massachusetts Medical Device Industry Council,Racial Discrimination Claims,Medical Causation Defense,Product Liability Defence,Intellectual Property Licensing Disputes,King V. Collagen Corporation,Kyeremteng V. Avis Rent A Car Systems LLC,In Re Latex Glove Litigation In New Hampshire,Benedict V. Service Corporation International,Butler V. Sigma-Aldrich, Inc.,Boudreaux V. Cybex,Eisenstein V. Conlin,Illinois Union V. Viking Corporation