直 Japanese PDF Font
  • Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Offices
  • Firm
  • Careers
Finnegan
Anthony A. Hartmann
Of Counsel
More
vCard
  • 901 New York Avenue, NW
  • Washington, DC 20001-4413
+1 202 408 4275
anthony.hartmann@finnegan.com anthony.hartmann@finnegan.com

Anthony A. Hartmann

Of Counsel

  • +1 202 408 4275 +1 202 408 4275
  • anthony.hartmann@finnegan.com anthony.hartmann@finnegan.com
  • 901 New York Avenue, NW
  • Washington, DC 20001-4413
  • vCard

Anthony Hartmann counsels clients and is active in all aspects of patent litigation in U.S. federal district courts and before the International Trade Commission (ITC). He also focuses on patent portfolio management and post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). As a patent prosecutor, litigator, and a former process engineer, Anthony draws on a distinct skill set that meets clients’ needs.

As a registered patent attorney, Anthony practices before the USPTO, managing patent portfolios; prosecuting ex parte reexaminations and reissue applications; arguing ex parte appeals before the appeals section of the PTAB; and filing and defending inter partes review (IPR) proceedings before the trials section of the PTAB. His technical expertise is diverse and includes working with hydrogenation processes, tire composition and manufacturing, diesel particulate filters, polymers (including polyethylene, polypropylene, PET, polyurethane foam, recycled polyester, isoprene/styrene latex, and polyimides) and polymeric systems, optical/electrical cables, solar cell devices, fuel cells, flow batteries, liquid crystal displays, specialty steels, pharmaceuticals, ophthalmic solutions, lithium batteries, biofuel manufacturing, lubricants, catalyzed soot filters, synthetic stone, and exchange resins.

 

Anthony has extensive client counseling experience, providing clearance, infringement, and validity opinions, as well as conducting due diligence investigations and portfolio reviews. He has represented clients in numerous technology areas, ranging from a leading petrochemical company regarding its metallocene PE technologies, to a variety of established and startup energy companies regarding their renewable biofuel technologies.

 

Anthony is involved in all aspects of patent litigation before the ITC and in federal district courts, including coordinating fact and expert discovery; conducting depositions; and briefing discovery, summary judgment, claim construction, and post-trial motions. His litigation work spans a wide variety of technologies, including m-polyethylene, polyimides, fluoropolymers, alkaline batteries, solar cells, jet engines, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals and other small molecules (including metallocene catalysts), vinyl flooring, medical devices, chemical mechanical planarization (CMP) slurries, and battery chargers.

 

Prior to joining Finnegan, Anthony worked at a patent firm, representing domestic petrochemical companies in litigation and patent interferences, particularly in the field of metallocene chemistry and related polymers. Before law school, he worked at Eastman Kodak Co. as a process-development engineer, focusing on the scale-up of photographic film manufacturing processes from laboratory to pilot plant to manufacturing. Anthony earned a professional engineering license from the State of New York.

 

Anthony devotes a portion of his time to pro bono matters. He has represented several veterans in appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims (CAVC), and prisoners in appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 7th Circuit and the U.S. Supreme Court. He has been listed on the Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll. 

Experience

Rolls-Royce v. United Technologies Corp.

Represented defendant United Technologies Corp. in a patent infringement action concerning swept fan blades for ducted gas turbine engines used on commercial and private aircraft, resulting in a favorable summary judgment ruling of noninfringement in favor of UTC.

1:10-cv-00457, E.D. Va., Judges Anderson, Brinkema

Kaken Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Bausch Health Care v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. et al.

Successfully led Kaken and Bausch Health Care in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, district court litigation, and Federal Circuit appeal related to patent covering Kaken and Bausch Health Care’s Jublia® (efinaconazole) product for the treatment of onychomycosis.

3:18-cv-13635, D.N.J., Judges Martinotti, Goodman
18-2232, Fed. Cir., Judges Newman, O'Malley, Taranto
IPR2017-00190, PTAB, Judges Mitchell, Franklin, Pollock
IPR2017-01429, PTAB, Judges Mitchell, Franklin, Pollock

Tianma Micro-Electronics Co. v. Japan Display Inc.; Panasonic Liquid Display Co.

Represented Tianma in a pair of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings regarding liquid crystal displays (LCD).

IPR2016-00990, -00991, PTAB, Judges Obermann, Kokoski, Kalan, Roesel

Eli Lilly and Company v. Actavis Labs. UT Inc.
Represented Eli Lilly in Hatch-Waxman action against several defendants relating to Cialis®.

1:16-cv-01119, E.D. Va., Judges Nachmanoff, Trenga

SK Innovation Co., Ltd. v. Celgard, LLC
Representing SK Innovation in a pair of inter partes reviews (IPRs) proceedings involving lithium batteries.

IPR2014-00679, -00680, PTAB, Judges Crumbley, Praiss, Prats

Hanwha Q CELLS USA Inc. et al. v. REC Solar Holdings AS et al.

Represented REC before the International Trade Commission, resulting in a summary determination ruling of noninfringement in favor of REC, as well as parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, regarding PERC solar cells, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit on appeal.

337-TA-1151, ITC, Judge McNamara
IPR2019-01145, PTAB, Judges Abraham, Crumbley, Heaney
20-2115, Fed. Cir., Judges Chen, Linn, Moore
1:19-cv-00452, D. Del., Judge Noreika

CMC Materials, LLC v. Dupont de Nemours, Inc. et al.

Represented DuPont in patent and antitrust litigation in the District of Delaware against a direct competitor relating to chemical-mechanical polishing compositions.

1:20-cv-00738, D. Del., Judge Hall

Certain Polyimide Film Products (Kaneka Corp. v. SKC Kolon PI, Inc.)

Represented SKC Kolon PI, Inc. and SKC, Inc. in a patent infringement and unfair competition action before the International Trade Commission (ITC) and the Central District of California.  Administrative Law Judge Robert K. Rogers, Jr. found all of the asserted claims to be not infringed, invalid, and/or failing to meet the domestic industry requirements, and therefore, no violation of Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended.  After a partial review, the Commission affirmed Judge Rogers’ decision.

337-TA-772, ITC, Judge Rogers
2:11-cv-03397, N.D. Cal., Judges Bernal, Fitzgerald, Nguyen, Zarefsky
18-1313, Fed. Cir.

Rolls-Royce v. United Technologies Corp.

Represented defendant United Technologies Corp. in a patent infringement action concerning swept fan blades for ducted gas turbine engines used on commercial and private aircraft, resulting in a favorable summary judgment ruling of noninfringement in favor of UTC.

1:10-cv-00457, E.D. Va., Judges Anderson, Brinkema

Kaken Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; Bausch Health Care v. Zydus Pharmaceuticals (USA) Inc. et al.

Successfully led Kaken and Bausch Health Care in inter partes review (IPR) proceedings, district court litigation, and Federal Circuit appeal related to patent covering Kaken and Bausch Health Care’s Jublia® (efinaconazole) product for the treatment of onychomycosis.

3:18-cv-13635, D.N.J., Judges Martinotti, Goodman
18-2232, Fed. Cir., Judges Newman, O'Malley, Taranto
IPR2017-00190, PTAB, Judges Mitchell, Franklin, Pollock
IPR2017-01429, PTAB, Judges Mitchell, Franklin, Pollock

Tianma Micro-Electronics Co. v. Japan Display Inc.; Panasonic Liquid Display Co.

Represented Tianma in a pair of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings regarding liquid crystal displays (LCD).

IPR2016-00990, -00991, PTAB, Judges Obermann, Kokoski, Kalan, Roesel

More

Insights

At the PTAB Blog

PTAB Finds No Derivation in First Derivation Proceeding PTAB Finds No Derivation in First Derivation Proceeding

March 25, 2019

At the PTAB Blog

PTAB’s First Oral Hearing in a Derivation Proceeding PTAB’s First Oral Hearing in a Derivation Proceeding

January 31, 2019

At the PTAB Blog

PTAB Institutes Its First Derivation Proceeding PTAB Institutes Its First Derivation Proceeding

March 27, 2018

At the PTAB Blog

PTAB: What to Expect on Remand PTAB: What to Expect on Remand

December 22, 2016

Prosecution First Blog

A Tale of Two Methods: Conditions Precedent and Broadest Reasonable Interpretation A Tale of Two Methods: Conditions Precedent and Broadest Reasonable Interpretation

November 15, 2016

Articles

IPR: Where a Finding of Indefiniteness Is Not Necessarily a Definite Resolution IPR: Where a Finding of Indefiniteness Is Not Necessarily a Definite Resolution

October 6, 2016

Inside Counsel
More

News

Award/Ranking

54 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2022 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll 54 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2022 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll

July 21, 2023

Press Release

55 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2020 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll 55 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2020 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll

April 2, 2021

Media Mention

4 Takeaways From PTAB's First Derivation Decision 4 Takeaways From PTAB's First Derivation Decision

March 27, 2019

Law360

Press Release

48 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2017 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll 48 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2017 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll

February 20, 2018

Press Release

42 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2016 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll 42 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2016 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll

February 17, 2017

Media Mention

America Invents Act Post-Grant Oppositions After Two Years: A Case End-to-End: What Wins? What Loses? America Invents Act Post-Grant Oppositions After Two Years: A Case End-to-End: What Wins? What Loses?

September 23, 2014

Bloomberg BNA
More

Professional Activities

  • American Bar Association
  • American Chemical Society
  • American Institute of Chemical Engineers
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • District of Columbia Bar Association
  • Giles S. Rich Inn of Court
  • Hispanic National Bar Association
  • Illinois Bar Association
  • International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property
Admissions and Education

Admissions

  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • District of Columbia
  • Illinois
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Veterans Claims

Education

University of Notre Dame Law School
J.D., 1996
University of Virginia
B.S., Chemical Engineering, 1988

Anthony's Practices

Appeals, Issues, and Legal Strategy
Appeals from the PTAB
Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals
Global IP Enforcement, Litigation, and Trials
Branded Hatch-Waxman (ANDA) Litigation and Trials
Due Diligence
Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Appeals
ITC Section 337 Investigations and Trials
Patent Litigation and Trials
Pretrial Strategies
PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR
Trade Secrets
Patent Office Invalidation Proceedings
Derivations
Ex Parte Reexamination (EPR)
Interferences
PTAB Invalidation Proceedings: IPR and PGR
Prosecution and Portfolio Management
Appeals to the PTAB
Ex Parte Reexamination (EPR)
IP Portfolio Management
Patent Drafting and Prosecution
Patent Reissues

Anthony's Industries

AI, Electronics, and Information Technology
Nanotechnology
Chemicals, Industrials, and Materials
Chemical
Manufacturing
Textiles
Consumer Goods and Services
Consumer Products
Energy
Clean Energy and Renewables
Oil and Gas
Life Sciences
Pharmaceutical
Transportation and Logistics
Aerospace, Aviation, and Unmanned Aerial Systems (UAS)

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