• Our Professionals
  • Our Work
  • Our Insights
  • Firm
  • Careers
  • Tools
Finnegan
Andrew_Renison
Andrew E. Renison
Associate
More
vCard
  • 901 New York Avenue, NW
  • Washington, DC 20001-4413
+1 202 408 4123
andrew.renison@finnegan.com andrew.renison@finnegan.com

Andrew E. Renison

Associate

  • +1 202 408 4123 +1 202 408 4123
  • andrew.renison@finnegan.com andrew.renison@finnegan.com
  • 901 New York Avenue, NW
  • Washington, DC 20001-4413
  • vCard
Andrew_Renison
Andrew Renison's chemistry and life sciences practice focuses on U.S. district court litigation with a particular emphasis on pharmaceutical patents and Hatch-Waxman litigation. His experience ranges from pre-litigation analysis through trial in large, complex ANDA litigation. Andrew's practice also includes strategic counseling and patent prosecution covering a range of technologies for clients in various industries.

Andrew's litigation experience includes conducting pre-filing investigations, coordinating fact and expert discovery, taking and defending depositions, working with experts, managing day-to-day litigation activities, preparing for and going to trial and drafting post-trial briefing.

Andrew's technical experience focused on the production and performance-testing of metal alloys ceramics. He was a recipient of the Metallurgy Trust Fund Scholarship. While earning his undergraduate degree, he worked on the synthesis and characterization of manganese dioxide nanorods at the Australian Institute for Bioengineering and Nanotechnology at the University of Queensland.

Experience

Biogen International GmbH v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

Represented Biogen in a Hatch-Waxman litigation involving twenty-eight companies seeking FDA approval to market generic versions of Tecfidera®.

1:17-cv-00829, D. Del., Judge Noreika
1:17-cv-00116, U.S. District Court, N.D. West Virginia, Judge Keeley

Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. v. Apotex Corp.

Counsel for Otsuka in Hatch-Waxman cases involving 24 companies seeking to market generic copies of Abilify® following expiration of compound patent covering active ingredient in Abilify®.  Only one case still pending following confidential resolutions of all other matters.

1:14-cv-01078, -04671, -02982, -07405, -05878, -06398 -08074 -03306, -06890, -05876, -08077, -03168, -07252, -07105 -05537, -03996, -06158, -04508, -04307, -06397, -07106, -01979, -03445; 1:15-cv-0161, -07584, -01585, -07803, -08830, -05109, -07802, -08955, -01716, -01967, -06353, -08305; 1:16-cv-05288, -05400, -05949, -07705 -02475, -02476, -08284, -05743, -00086, -08085, -00555, -00557, -07346, -06067, -00405, -00424, -05688, -09603; 1:17-cv-02754, -00392, D.N.J., Judges Simandle, Williams

Celgard, LLC v. SK Innovation Co.

Represented Korea-based client SK Innovation (SKI) in a patent infringement suit against plaintiff Celgard LLC. The court granted SKI’s motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction and denied Celgard’s motion for preliminary injunction. Affirmed on appeal by Federal Circuit.

3:13-cv-00254, W.D.N.C., Judges Cayer, Cogburn
14-1807, Fed. Cir., Judges Newman, Reyna, Wallach

Insights

Conference

24th Annual Green Chemistry and Engineering Virtual Conference 24th Annual Green Chemistry and Engineering Virtual Conference

June 15-19, 2020

Virtual

Articles

Recent Developments in Patent Law: Non-Obviousness of Pharmaceutical Formulations

Recent Developments in Patent Law: Non-Obviousness of Pharmaceutical Formulations Recent Developments in Patent Law: Non-Obviousness of Pharmaceutical Formulations

August 29, 2019

Bloomberg Law

Articles

Expert Opinions on Reasonable Royalties Must Have a Basis for Comparison to Licenses on Which They Rely and Tie Them to the Facts of the Case Expert Opinions on Reasonable Royalties Must Have a Basis for Comparison to Licenses on Which They Rely and Tie Them to the Facts of the Case

February 27, 2019

LES Insights

Articles

Supreme Court Restricts Where Patent Owners May Sue for Patent Infringement Supreme Court Restricts Where Patent Owners May Sue for Patent Infringement

May 30, 2017

LES Insights

Articles

Court Dismisses Divided Infringement Claim Because Customer's Data Entry Steps Were Not Attributable to the Defendant Software Vendor Court Dismisses Divided Infringement Claim Because Customer's Data Entry Steps Were Not Attributable to the Defendant Software Vendor

November 29, 2016

LES Insights

Articles

A Prior Agreement to Outsource Manufacturing Does Not Invalidate a Patent A Prior Agreement to Outsource Manufacturing Does Not Invalidate a Patent

August 16, 2016

LES Insights
12 more

News

Press Release

62 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2018 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll 62 Finnegan Attorneys Named to 2018 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll

April 5, 2019

Admissions and Education

Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • Maryland
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

Education

George Washington University Law School
J.D., 2013
University of British Columbia
B.S., Materials Engineering, 2009

Andrew's Practices

Patent Litigation
Branded Hatch-Waxman (ANDA)
Patent Trial
Pre-Trial Strategy
Patent Office Examinations
Prosecution

Andrew's Industries

Electronics and Information Technology
Nanotechnology
Energy
Chemical
Clean Energy and Renewables
Hospitality, Gaming, and Leisure
Sports, Fitness, and Outdoor Recreation
Life Sciences
Biotechnology
Pharmaceutical

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

We use cookies on this website to provide you with the best user experience. By accepting cookies, you agree to our use of cookies. Please note that if you opt not to accept or if you disable cookies, the “Your Finnegan” feature on this website will be disabled as well. For more information on how we use cookies, please see our Privacy Policy.

  • Privacy
  • Disclaimer
  • EEO Statement

© 2021 Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP