Partner
Lauren Robinson is experienced in intellectual property (IP) litigation and transactional matters. She focuses on complex patent litigation before U.S. district courts as well as post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Her practice encompasses a wide range of technologies, with an emphasis on pharmaceuticals, chemicals, and energy technologies.
Lauren has been involved in all stages of district court litigation, from pre-complaint analysis to trial and post-trial. Her litigation experience includes analyzing patent portfolios for assertion; formulating claim construction, infringement, and validity positions; drafting discovery requests and responses; taking and defending fact and expert depositions; preparing witnesses for deposition, Markman hearings, and trial; examining expert witnesses at trial; and drafting discovery-related motions and briefs, Markman briefs, pre- and post-trial motions and briefs, findings of fact, and conclusions of law. In particular, she has extensive litigation experience involving the Hatch-Waxman Act, which governs the approval of pharmaceutical products. Lauren also assists clients in inter partes review (IPR), ex parte reexamination (EPR), and other contested proceedings before the PTAB, including developing strategies to effectively litigate in simultaneous district court and PTAB proceedings.
In addition to litigation, Lauren counsels domestic and international clients regarding U.S. IP law by providing infringement and validity opinions, and by advising them in licensing, antitrust, due diligence, and IP portfolio matters. She also counsels clients regarding patent applications pending before the USPTO.
Lauren has a robust background in a wide variety of chemical, pharmaceutical, energy, agricultural, mechanical, and electrical technologies. Prior to her legal career, Lauren restored a 1968 Volkswagen Beetle from a rusty lawn ornament into her daily driver while working at the Kennedy Space Center, where she developed a post-flight data-processing tool for Delta II and Atlas V vehicles, and performed failure analyses for valves and residual gas analyzers in the Hazardous Gas Detection Lab.
Served as research editor for the Florida Law Review, Spring 2013.
Examined patents during the USPTO Patent Experience Externship Program in Technology Center 2800, Summer 2012.
Bausch Health Ireland Limited et al. v. Aurobindo Pharma Limited et al.
Represented Bausch Health et al. in Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) litigation involving Trulance® (plecanatide) tablets for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome and chronic idiopathic constipation, resulting in favorable settlement post-trial.
2:23-cv-00170, D.N.J., Judge Chesler
1:21-cv-00611, D. Del., Judge Stark
1:22-cv-00085, N.D.W. Va., Judge Kleeh
2:21-cv-00573, W.D. Pa., Judges Cercone, Hardy
1:22-cv-00020, N.D.W. Va., Judge Kleeh
2:21-cv-10057, D.N.J., Judge Chesler
2:21-cv-10403, D.N.J., Judge Chesler
2:23-cv-03333, D.N.J., Judge Chesler
1:24-cv-00036, N.D.W. Va., Judge Kleeh
2:24-cv-07182, D.N.J., Judge Chesler
2:24-cv-11179, D.N.J., Judge Chesler
1:25-cv-00003, N.D.W. Va., Judge Kleeh
IPR2023-00016, PTAB, Judges Hardman, Hulse, Valek
IPR2022-00722, - 01102, -01103, -01104, -01105, PTAB, Judges Hardman, Hulse, Snedden, Valek
Ningde Amperex Technology Limited v. Zhuhai CosMX Battery Co., Ltd.
2:22-cv-00232, E.D. Tex., Judge Gilstrap
Bial - Portela & CA S.A. v. Alkem Laboratories Ltd et al.
Represented Bial in district court Hatch-Waxman litigation involving the anti-epileptic drug Aptiom®.
1:18-cv-00304, D. Del., Judges Connolly, Burke
Webinar
Patent Term at Risk? Navigating OTDP’s Impact on PTA, PTE, and Reissue in Light of Recent Federal Circuit Decisions Patent Term at Risk? Navigating OTDP’s Impact on PTA, PTE, and Reissue in Light of Recent Federal Circuit Decisions
November 20, 2025
Webinar
Webinar
Strategies for Effectively Enhancing IP Value of Critical Assets After Teva v. Amneal and Other Recent Decisions Strategies for Effectively Enhancing IP Value of Critical Assets After Teva v. Amneal and Other Recent Decisions
June 11, 2025
Webinar
Articles
Implications of California's AB 824 Patent Settlement Regulation Implications of California's AB 824 Patent Settlement Regulation
May 21, 2025
Life Science LeaderWebinar
IP Challenges in Protecting Life Sciences Innovations IP Challenges in Protecting Life Sciences Innovations
September 18, 2024
Webinar
Articles
Breeders’ Rights No Longer a Pipe Dream for New Marijuana Varieties? Breeders’ Rights No Longer a Pipe Dream for New Marijuana Varieties?
August 13, 2024
Cannabis Business ExecutiveAward/Ranking
Best Lawyers Recognizes 44 Finnegan Attorneys in its 2026 Edition of The Best Lawyers and Ones to Watch Best Lawyers Recognizes 44 Finnegan Attorneys in its 2026 Edition of The Best Lawyers and Ones to Watch
August 21, 2025
Best LawyersAward/Ranking
31 Finnegan Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers 31 Finnegan Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers
August 15, 2024
Best LawyersPress Release
32 Finnegan Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers 32 Finnegan Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers
August 17, 2023
Best LawyersPress Release
29 Finnegan Attorneys Ranked by Best Lawyers 29 Finnegan Attorneys Ranked by Best Lawyers
August 18, 2022
U.S. News—Best LawyersPress Release
Twenty Finnegan Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers Twenty Finnegan Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers
August 20, 2021
U.S. News—Best Lawyers
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.