When cases involve highly technical or science-based issues, it is essential that your legal team understand the subject matter of the dispute as well as the case law and procedural nuances specific to intellectual property law. Finnegan’s singular focus on IP gives clients a distinct advantage, because unlike other types of litigation, patent cases are often resolved before a trial ever begins. Claim construction, prior art searches, evaluations of a patent’s strengths and weaknesses, invalidity challenges, reexamination alternatives, building a damages strategy, identification of experts—these are just a few of the issues that can predetermine the outcome of a patent litigation.
We work with clients to help align litigation strategy with business goals, which might mean settling on reasonable terms as early as possible, or alternatively, sending a message to industry competitors through aggressive enforcement or defensive strategies. In our experience, a good settlement can often result in advantageous business solutions. As circumstances warrant, we assemble a skilled team from our deep bench to assist with crafting settlements before, during, and after trial so the litigation team can remain focused on the trial. Historically, some of our most significant achievements for clients have been attained through tactics that allowed them to meet their business and financial goals without the risks attendant to having a judge, jury, arbitration panel, administrative board, or appellate panel decide their future.
When trial is the best or only option, Finnegan brings the right mix of technical expertise and trial and appellate experience. For 60 years, we have successfully litigated hundreds of cases involving the most technologically advanced and complex patents and argued the decisions on appeal by intentionally setting the trial record and fully preserving issues.
We have patent professionals who hold Ph.D.’s in fields ranging from neurobiology to electrical engineering, and more than a hundred hold master’s degrees. Before and during trial, our knowledge and intellectual firepower are applied to make the most intricate issues easily understood and to undercut the opposing side’s arguments. We build and present cases that are accurate, understandable, and persuasive.
We know the forums for IP disputes because we have successfully argued cases in the top IP venues for jurisdictions we serve, including in German regional civil courts, U.S. district courts, the UK Intellectual Property Enterprise Court, the UK High Court, the German Federal Patent Court (FPC), the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, the German Federal Court of Justice (FCJ), the UK Court of Appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court. We have also worked at these courts and agencies, and many of our professionals have backgrounds as judicial law clerks in trial and appellate courts. Across our eleven global offices, we diligently helped clients prepare for the June 2023 opening of the European Union’s Unified Patent Court (UPC), and we were among the first firms to file an action in the UPC.
Secured dismissal with prejudice by establishing that plaintiff failed to plead compliance with the patent-marking requirements of 35 U.S.C. § 287. Successfully defended the judgment on appeal, where the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision affirming the dismissal and attorney-fee award, strengthening precedent on patent marking and appellate jurisdiction.
4:23-cv-02961, S.D. Tex., Judge Rosenthal
24-2226, Fed. Cir., Judges Lourie, Cunningham, Moore
Achieved a comprehensive victory for respondent Innoscience, a global leader in gallium nitride (GaN) power devices, in a high-profile patent dispute before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC). The ITC’s Final Determination confirms that Innoscience avoided all patent claims asserted by Infineon.
337‑TA‑1414, ITC, Judge Moore
Persuaded the court that asserted claims directed to an alleged form of geofencing technology were ineligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The court found the patent invalid and dismissed the case against client Audi with prejudice in the first instance.
4:25-cv-11147, E.D. Mich., Judge Behm
Represented a global pharmaceutical company against a generic company on a patent covering an injectable painkilling medicine for short-term pain relief.
Obtained a $240 million jury verdict for client Promptu in a patent infringement lawsuit against Comcast. The jury found that Comcast willfully infringed Promptu’s patents covering voice recognition technology for TV.
2:16-cv-06516, E.D. Pa., Judge Sanchez
22-1939, Fed. Cir., Judges Prost, Moore, Taranto
Advised a global healthcare company in anticipated court proceedings seeking declarations of non-infringement related to its influenza vaccines.
Webinar
PTAB Developments and Their Impact on Parallel Litigation: Strategic Considerations
August 26, 2026
Webinar
Conference
Finnegan IP Summit 2026: Celebrating an Inclusive Talent Pipeline
August 11-13, 2026
Washington, DC
Hybrid Conference
Intellectual Property Law Institute 2026 – California
October 19-20, 2026
San Francisco
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.