If your intellectual property case goes to trial in the United States, the judgment is likely to be appealed. Whether before the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit or the US Supreme Court, appeals require extensive knowledge of the rules governing the forum. And they demand a thorough understanding of both the law and the facts to plainly convey your position and skillfully persuade your audience.
Finnegan attorneys have briefed and argued hundreds of cases before the Federal Circuit—quite possibly more than any other law firm—and approximately 40 have served as judicial law clerks to judges on the Federal Circuit. We represent both appellants and appellees in cases covering a wide range of industries and issues across all the US Courts of Appeals. Our success in these cases derives from the firm’s focus on intellectual property law, the technical backgrounds of our attorneys, and their experience directly related to appellate practice.
Appellate cases are a highly specialized area of litigation. Finnegan is widely known for the quality of its briefs and oral arguments. Our comprehensive understanding of the law and, in patent cases, the technology allows us to quickly identify the one or two arguments with the most promise to persuade. Our experience before the Federal Circuit and other federal courts of appeals helps us craft concise and persuasive arguments for our clients. With only one or two briefs and fifteen minutes of oral argument to make your case, Finnegan brings the type of experience that can make all the difference.
The appeals process often starts well before the actual filing of the appeal. Clients retain us at the trial stage to help them look ahead at appeal issues and assist with pre-trial motions, trial motions, and jury instructions. And in other instances, they retain us after trial to assist with post-trial motions to make sure that issues are properly preserved for appeal. Frequently, we are retained to assess how a case may fare on appeal. This assessment includes analyzing the trial court’s significant rulings, identifying the strongest issues for appeal, and advising on how to best present and argue the issues.
Finnegan has had a close and lasting involvement with the Federal Circuit. Our dozens of former clerks worked closely with the judges to help draft opinions, gaining insight into the deliberative process and court protocol. Finnegan attorneys have been honored to serve in leadership roles on the court’s advisory council and to be founding members of the Federal Circuit Bar Association, in which many of our attorneys continue to serve on committees and in leadership positions. Other Finnegan attorneys coauthor the leading treatise on Federal Circuit practice, Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—Practice and Procedure, published by Matthew Bender.
Finnegan’s extensive appellate experience has led parties to turn to our attorneys in many important IP cases. In recent years, the Supreme Court has taken a greater role in shaping IP law. Finnegan has represented both petitioners and respondents before the Supreme Court and regularly assists amici curiae in filing briefs at both the certiorari and merits stages. Our attorneys have participated in briefing more than 50 cases, and they have argued several cases before the Court, including the landmark cases Bilski v. Kappos and Bonito Boats v. Thunder Craft Boats.
2:20-cv-02766, W.D. Tenn., Judge McCalla
22-1222, Fed. Cir., Judges Cunningham, Hughes, Reyna
Successfully represented Alzheon, Inc. before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in securing denial of petitions for inter partes reviews (IPR) and post-grant review (PGR) challenging two of Alzheon’s patents related to ALZ-801/valitramiprosate, a treatment for Alzheimer’s Disease. Also successfully represented Alzheon before the Federal Circuit in an appeal related to isotopically enriched forms of ALZ-801/valitramiprosate.
IPR2022-01200, PGR2022-00051, PTAB, Judges Newman, Snedden, Wisz
22-2232, Fed. Cir.
21-1517, Fed. Cir., Judges Moore, Newman, Hughes
IPR2019-00683, PTAB, Judges Zecher, Jurgovan, Zado
Represented Intuitive Surgical Operations on appeals from petitions for inter partes review (IPR) filed by Auris Health, Inc.
21-1473, -1732, -1733, Fed. Cir., Judges Prost, Dyk, Reyna
IPR2019-01173, -01533, -01547, PTAB, Judges Franklin, Hulse, Jenks, Worth, Yang
4:21-cv-00940, E.D. Tex., Judge Mazzant
22-156, Fed. Cir., Judges Dyk, Reyna, Taranto
IPR2022-01405, -01456, -01457, PTAB, Judges Iftikhar, Kahn, Parvis
18-2024, -2025, Fed. Cir., Judges Prost, Wallach, Hughes
IPR2017-00118, -00472, PTAB, Judges Kim, Ippolito, Cherry
Federal Circuit IP Blog
August 16, 2024
Federal Circuit IP Blog
August 16, 2024
Due to international data regulations, we’ve 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.
Finnegan is thrilled to announce the launch of our new blog, Ad Law Buzz, devoted solely to breaking news, developments, trends, and analysis in advertising law.