Since being involved in the very first Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) litigation in the United States, Finnegan has been a leading firm representing innovative pharmaceutical companies before federal district courts and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Our litigation and trial successes derive from a deep bench of experienced and technically sophisticated attorneys who understand the long-term plans of innovative pharmaceutical companies as well as the legal particularities of ANDA litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act and the nuances of pharmaceutical patent law. Over the last five years, our attorneys have represented more than 25 brand companies in almost 400 ANDA litigations involving revolutionary drugs such as Kisqali®, Lumify®, Prolensa®, Cymbalta®, and Abilify®.
While Finnegan has been recognized as the “go-to” firm for protecting blockbuster products, and many of the cases we litigate are “bet-the-company” engagements, we understand the importance of all products to our clients, regardless of their sales amounts, and thus custom tailor our litigation teams to best protect those products. The size of our firm and extensive branded Hatch-Waxman litigation experience provides us with a unique ability to custom fit our teams to the technology at issue in the most cost effective manner to meet the client’s objectives. We work hand-in-hand with clients to develop creative, coordinated, and successful litigation strategies.
ANDA cases are often won, or lost, on a firm’s ability to master the science underlying a patented invention, and to present that technology in a compelling way. With approximately 80 professionals holding advanced degrees in the biological or chemical sciences, Finnegan has the ability to harness the underlying science to develop winning positions. About one-third of the attorneys in the practice hold doctorate degrees in relevant sciences, and even more joined Finnegan after holding positions in industry, at universities, or having served as examiners with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Having technical expertise helps us seamlessly interface with inventors and experts, take advantage of subtle but important details, and craft concise and persuasive, yet easy-to-understand arguments.
Success in ANDA litigation often begins months or even years before litigation begins. Clients retain us prior to Paragraph IV challenges to analyze relevant patent portfolios to, for example, determine and obtain optimal claim coverage, and assess, evaluate, and address potential vulnerabilities—including those that could be challenged in adversarial proceedings before the USPTO. Whether you are anticipating receipt of a Paragraph IV notice letter or still in late-stage clinical trials, it is never too early to start preparation.
When trial is the best or only option in ANDA litigation, 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 pharmaceutical patents and argued the decisions on appeal by intentionally setting the trial record and fully preserving issues. Before and throughout trial, we leverage our deep scientific knowledge to clarify complex issues, anticipate and counter opposing arguments, and present cases that are accurate, compelling, and easy for judges to understand. The result is advocacy that is both intellectually rigorous and highly effective.
Finnegan attorneys have briefed and argued hundreds of cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit—quite possibly more than any other law firm—achieving successful outcomes protecting innovative drugs such as Abilify®, Claritin®, Crestor®, Naprelan®, Strattera®, and Zyprexa®. Approximately 40 of the firm’s attorneys have served as law clerks to judges on the Federal Circuit or its predecessor courts. As clerks, they worked closely with the judges, helping to draft opinions and gaining insight into the deliberative process and protocol of the court further enhancing our depth of experience and keen understanding of the law. This unparalleled appellate experience and industry expertise helps us protect our client’s pharmaceutical innovations throughout the ANDA process.
Successfully represented Bausch & Lomb and Eye Therapies in a Hatch-Waxman patent infringement litigation and parallel PTAB challenges concerning an ANDA for generic versions of over-the-counter Lumify® ocular drops. The cases settled favorably for our clients.
3:21-cv-16766, D.N.J., Judges Kirsch, Singh
IPR2022-00146, PTAB, Judges Hulse, New, Pollock
IPR2024-00467, PTAB, Judges Flax, Pollock, Yang
IPR2022-00142, PTAB, Judges Flax, Hulse, New, Pollock
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
Representing Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma in litigation matters related to Radicava ORS (edaravone) used to treat patients with amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS).
2:25-cv-03326, D.N.J., Judge Cecchi
1:23-cv-00759, D. Del., Judges Burke, Connolly, Hall
1:24-cv-01423, D. Del., Judge Hall
1:24-cv-00549, D. Del., Judge Hall
Finnegan is representing AbbVie, Allergan, and Merck in ongoing ANDA litigation involving Ubrelvy®, indicated for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults.
3:24-cv-04603, D.N.J., Judges Quraishi, Day
3:24-cv-04662, D.N.J., Judges Quraishi, Day
3:24-cv-04852, D.N.J., Judges Quraishi, Day
2:23-cv-00094, 2:23-cv-02364, D.N.J., Judges Cecchi, Padin, Wettre
Bausch & Lomb Incorporated; Bausch & Lomb Ireland Limited; Nicox, SA v. Gland Pharma Limited, et al.
Representing Bausch & Lomb in ANDA litigation involving Vyzulta® (latanoprostene bunod) eye drops for reduction of intraocular pressure (IOP) in patients suffering from glaucoma or ocular hypertension. Bausch & Lomb sought to protect the Vyzulta® franchise against challenges asserted by generic pharmaceutical manufacturers Dr. Reddy’s and Gland.
3:22-cv-04345, D.N.J., Judges Chesler, Kirsch, Shipp
3:23-cv-03463, D.N.J., Judge Kirsch
Federal Circuit IP Blog
August 11, 2025
Award/Ranking
Finnegan Wins “Intellectual Property Firm of the Year” at the 2026 Benchmark Litigation Awards
March 12, 2026
Award/Ranking
Finnegan Shortlisted for Intellectual Property Firm of the Year at 2026 Benchmark Litigation Awards
January 15, 2026
Due to international data regulations, we’ve updated our privacy policy. Click here to read our privacy policy in full.