Law360 spotlighted Finnegan partner Cora Holt in its series celebrating standout women litigators, featuring nominations from opposing counsel. Cora was nominated based on her exceptional performance in the Genzyme v. Novartis case, where she was praised for her strategic judgment, practical approach, and ability to focus on what truly matters in complex cases. Cora was also recognized for her dedication and continued leadership in the matter during late-stage pregnancy.
Cora joined Finnegan in 2011 after graduating from the University of Wisconsin Law School and later clerked for Judge Sharon Prost of the Federal Circuit before returning to the firm. Her recognition underscores both her litigation skill and the respect she commands across the IP bar.
Excerpts from the interview are below:
How did you get into patent law?
My story is probably a familiar one for many patent lawyers. From a young age, science was my passion. I enjoyed learning about how the world works, particularly about human biology, medicine and all of the cutting-edge research that was going on in those fields. I went on to study biochemistry, but neither primary lab work nor practicing medicine was ultimately going to be a good fit for me. I was more focused on the macro effects of these types of technologies on our lives and in our world.
At the same time, I always loved research writing and the academic side of learning, and got exposed to patent law during my undergraduate work at University of Wisconsin. And it sort of just immediately felt like a perfect fit for me to marry my love of science with the craft of writing and explaining things. And so I went to law school for that purpose and haven't looked back.
Why litigation?
I actually began as — and intended to be — a patent prosecutor, but in my first year, I was quickly exposed to litigation. I worked on a pretty high-profile pharmaceutical case and absolutely loved it. I've done many things in patent law over the course of my career — litigation, prosecution, PTAB work, client counseling work, all of it. But for me, litigation is really the most exciting place to operate.
First, you get to dig into the legal nuances of any particular issue, and I really enjoy that process of building unassailable legal support for that position and presenting it in a straightforward and digestible way. The concepts in patent law can be extremely technical, complex and dense, and the challenge of presenting that information to a fact finder in a clear and concise and digestible way is really enjoyable for me. I think that's part of the fun of litigation.
And then the other side of it is just working with our clients and understanding how a particular litigation is just one part of the much bigger picture goal of what they're doing. For me, in the life science space, that's often about bringing life-changing science, medicine, technologies or research to the market in a way that really impacts people's lives. So being a part of that process and seeing how I fit into it for the clients that I work with is pretty meaningful.
What are some notable cases that you've worked on?
Principally, my work is district court and Federal Circuit disputes, focusing mostly in life science technologies, although I do more than that. One sort of interesting case that stands out to me is a U.S. International Trade Commission case representing Ajinomoto.
Life sciences cases aren't as common at the ITC. And it was fun to get exposed to this different venue and also the clients that were involved in this. This was a case about engineered bacteria used to produce essential amino acids. It was very, very interesting science. The parties were very big players in this field. The case hit a lot of hot-button issues. There were Section 112 written description and enablement questions for genus claims. There were tricky obviousness questions. There were more esoteric areas of patent law. It hit every facet of patent law.
The thing I really enjoyed about it is we took that case through every level. We did trial at the ITC, an appeal at the Federal Circuit, and we went up to the U.S. Supreme Court, where we responded to a cert petition that was denied. It was several years of my career, and working with the client over the course of that time, and to defend them at basically every level, was really gratifying.
Read the full interview here: She Has A Point: Finnegan's Cora Holt
