直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
    • AI + Finnegan
    • Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy
    • Diligence, Licensing, and Opinions
    • Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials
    • Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings
    • Prosecution and Portfolio Management
    • Trademark and Brand Management
    • AI, Electronics, and Information Technology
    • Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials
    • Communications
    • Consumer Goods and Services
    • Energy
    • Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure
    • Life Sciences
    • Transportation and Logistics
  • Experience

Arbitration and Other ADR

About

Sidestepping costly choices to find better answers

Finnegan has one of the strongest reputations for litigating IP disputes through trial and appeal. But when circumstances merit its use, we favor alternative dispute resolution (ADR). We often develop a litigation strategy designed to meet goals through ADR instead of trial.

Our ADR capabilities run the gamut from resolution of domestic infringement cases to settlement of multinational infringement disputes, resulting in agreements that set standards to be used as the basis for future patent challenges. Over the past decade, we have participated in a number of important national and international ADR proceedings with the International Chamber of Commerce, the World Intellectual Property Organization, and the American Arbitration Association.

We have national and international experience in a variety of ADR procedures, including mediations before U.S. magistrate judges, under pilot programs of various U.S. district courts, before neutral experts, through various ADR organizations, and in open negotiations between principals and their lawyers. Our attorneys often act as neutral lawyers and have served as special masters and court-appointed advisors for patent cases in U.S. district courts across the country.

Contacts

James R. Barney
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4412
Email
Paul W. Browning, Ph.D.
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4134
Email
Daniel G. Chung
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4355
Email
Forrest A. Jones
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4019
Email
D. Brian Kacedon
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4301
Email
J. Preston (J.P.) Long, Ph.D.
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4347
Email
Gary C. Ma
Partner
Taipei
+886 2 2712 7001
Email
Ryan P. O'Quinn, Ph.D.
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2426
Email
Erik R. Puknys
Partner
Palo Alto, CA
+1 650 849 6644
Email
William B. Raich, Ph.D.
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4210
Email
Jeffrey D. Smyth
Partner
Palo Alto, CA
+1 650 849 6618
Email
Ningling Wang
Partner
Shanghai
+86 21 6194 2005
Email
Ming-Tao Yang
Partner
Palo Alto, CA
+1 650 849 6783
Email
Naoki Yoshida
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 6057
Email
James R. Barney
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4412
Email
Paul W. Browning, Ph.D.
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4134
Email
Daniel G. Chung
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4355
Email
Forrest A. Jones
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4019
Email
D. Brian Kacedon
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4301
Email
J. Preston (J.P.) Long, Ph.D.
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4347
Email
Gary C. Ma
Partner
Taipei
+886 2 2712 7001
Email
Ryan P. O'Quinn, Ph.D.
Partner
Reston, VA
+1 571 203 2426
Email
Erik R. Puknys
Partner
Palo Alto, CA
+1 650 849 6644
Email
William B. Raich, Ph.D.
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 4210
Email
Jeffrey D. Smyth
Partner
Palo Alto, CA
+1 650 849 6618
Email
Ningling Wang
Partner
Shanghai
+86 21 6194 2005
Email
Ming-Tao Yang
Partner
Palo Alto, CA
+1 650 849 6783
Email
Naoki Yoshida
Partner
Washington, DC
+1 202 408 6057
Email

Everyone in this practice

Experience

Genzyme Corp. v. CSRC et al.
Represented CSRC in two arbitrations and one litigation relating to exclusive licenses and patent assignments for patents directed to treating Pompe Disease, a rare genetic disorder that is often fatal if untreated. Secured a $180 million settlement from Genzyme.

01-19-0001-6937; 01-20-0000-5081, AAA

Arbitration victory for major U.S. pharmaceutical company
Represented a major U.S. pharmaceutical company in two arbitrations concerning a leading biologic. Finnegan’s client won both arbitrations and, in the second, was awarded its attorney fees.
Finnegan successfully represents U.S. pharmaceutical company in an arbitration
Represented a U.S. pharmaceutical company in an arbitration with a former consultant and inventor. The dispute involved issues relating to inventorship and ownership, as well as the determination of royalties due under various agreements. The matter settled shortly before the hearing on favorable terms.
AbbVie Biotechnology; Abbott GmbH Ltd. v. InterLab Limited; Merck-Serono Limited
Member of team that represented AbbVie Biotechnology Ltd. and Abbott GmbH in a WIPO arbitration related to patent licensing.

WIPOA120712, WIPO

Cumberland Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Mylan Institutional, LLC
Counsel for Cumberland in ANDA litigation and breach of contract arbitration. Successful outcome in bench trial, arbitration, arbitration fee award, and appeal.

16-1155, -1259, Fed. Cir., Judges Moore, Reyna, Taranto
1:12-cv-03846, N.D. Ill., Judge Pallmeyer

Anoto AB v. LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc.
Guided Anoto through a successful European arbitration proceeding to enforce a supply agreement for a critical component of Anoto’s products, and then spearheaded a successful effort to enforce the arbitrator’s decision in the United States.

3:16-cv-06209, N.D. Cal., Judge Tigar

More

Insights

Federal Circuit IP Blog

Federal Circuit Transfers Case Where an Issue of Federal Patent Law Was Not Necessarily Raised

August 1, 2025

Webinar

Maximizing and Leveraging IP in the Life Sciences

November 10, 2022

Webinar

Articles

Foreign Discovery Tips After Justices Tapered Statute's Scope

November 4, 2022

Lecture

Fundamentals of Dispute Resolution in Japan and United States

December 2, 2021

Webinar

Articles

A Lawsuit Seeking an Injunction Did Not Waive the Right to Arbitration Provided by an Earlier Agreement

October 28, 2021

Articles

A Non-Compete Agreement—Not Including an Arbitration Clause—Superseded an Earlier Signed Dispute Resolution Agreement—Including an Arbitration Clause, So the Court Did Not Compel the Parties To Arbitrate Their Disputes

October 28, 2021

More

News

Media Mention

Sanofi Unit To Pay $180M in Disease Treatment Patent Fight

November 22, 2021

Commentary

Q&A: Arbitrating Trade Secret Disputes

January 2020

Media Mention

3 Firms Dominate In IP Litigation, GCs Say

September 29, 2014

Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • Legal Notices
  • Fraud Alert
  • EEO Statement
  • Cookies
  • Contact Us

© 2026 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP