Litigation Leaders: Finnegan’s Jennifer Roscetti on the Advantages of Being Fully Focused on IP

Finnegan partner Jennifer Roscetti was featured in Law.com’s “Litigation Leaders” series, highlighting her role as co-leader of the firm’s Litigation & Trials Section. Jennifer, a chemical engineer by training, discussed how Finnegan helps clients navigate complex, multijurisdictional patent strategies across global markets, as well as how she approaches her co-leader position. Below are excerpts from the interview.  

Lit Daily: Tell us a bit about yourself—perhaps a thing or two your partners would be surprised to learn about you. 

Jennifer Roscetti: I didn't take a traditional path to Finnegan. I actually got my job here by getting [name partner] Don Dunner's home phone number from my professor. I co-opped when I was an undergrad for DuPont in West Virginia and then headed down to Houston for a job with Exxon Mobil. I went to law school [at the University of Houston Law Center] at night at first. They had a great IP program with a lot of connections, including to Finnegan through Paul Janicke.  

From where I got my start, I probably shouldn't be working at a law firm. I should be in a corporation somewhere. But ultimately, I decided I wanted to go to law school full-time. I finished up in three years and got a summer position here at Finnegan. I've been here ever since. Some people know that I called Don Dunner at dinner to get my interview. To which he promptly told me, “I'll call you back in a bit. We're having dinner.” He's very formal. (Laughs.) 

What's your personal practice? Has most of it centered on chemical-based patent work? 

It's a mix, actually. I did do some patent prosecution work—true to Finnegan, where we encourage people to do both prosecution and litigation counseling. Because we are IP-focused overall, we think it makes you a better attorney—particularly a better IP attorney—to understand both. Our clients come to us with a lot of different asks. So that's something that I think is somewhat unique: You don’t have to take a path, so to speak, as soon as you walk in the door about whether or not you want to do patent prosecution versus litigation. 

I very quickly, though, realized that I enjoyed litigation. I got to go to trial very early in my career and saw the greats like Ford Farabow and [Charles] Lipsey. I really was blessed in that way and got to see cross-examinations that would pique anyone's interest. So, I've been doing a lot of pharmaceutical work and, particularly, representing brand pharmaceuticals in the small molecule space. I've also done some work on the biologic side as that has become popular. And then I've also done some chemical cases. But really a large part of my career has been on the pharmaceutical side. I’ve also dipped into the ITC practice as well, more on the chemical side than pharmaceuticals there. And I did a couple of cases related to the processes and end products related to sweeteners in the ITC early on in my career. But I’ve largely been in district court litigation, and some parallel PTAB work as well, where there is a mix of technologies. 

I think something great about Finnegan is that we have cross-disciplinary teams. If the technology calls for it, we can handle mechanical aspects and chemical attributes to certain patents at issue. I have worked with a number of my colleagues in that space as well, for technologies ranging from countertops to product-by-process claims attributed to just pure chemical entities. That's a broad range, but that's what keeps it interesting. 

How do you split duties when it comes to leading the practice? 

[Chip Rettew and I] really do work in a collaborative way. We try to make sure on every aspect, both Chip and I are involved, whether it be training of our new attorneys—there's overlap with respect to trial preparation, deposition and that sort of thing. But then there are the substantive issues like what experts you use. In a trademark case that might differ substantially from those that you may use in a true patent litigation. We're not really put in silos in our administrative duties as the co-leads on purpose, because we want to make sure the full breadth of the firm's abilities across patent and trademark litigation are represented because both are such an important part of our practice. 

What are the hallmarks of Finnegan litigators? What makes your folks different? How much of it is centered on the intellectual property differentiator? 

We certainly have a global litigation practice, and I think because we are centered solely on IP-related disputes, that really differentiates us from others. Other firms have a different focus. They may have a menu of different things with respect to litigation. But our singular focus on IP law and our deep bench of litigators in this particular area, across the disputes, across the jurisdictions, really differentiates us. They may have an IP group or talented individuals, but collectively, Finnegan certainly has the most cases. But if you look at Finnegan and the number of cases we handle that are solely related to IP disputes–putting local counsel aside—from the substantive perspective, being lead counsel, we outpace all of our competitors, including the general practice firms. And I think that comes back to our clients seeing our focus. 

A lot of times our clients are globally trying to manage timing and strategy related to patents—not only litigation but patent filings and potential litigations. That requires looking across jurisdictions for each of our individual clients. They can get all of that here at Finnegan in a way with an expertise that really no one can match. 

Read Litigation Leaders: Finnegan’s Jennifer Roscetti on the Advantages of Being Fully Focused on IP