Last August, we published our third annual ANDA Litigation Intelligence Report. The report covered the ANDA litigation landscape and focused on cases filed during the past five years. We provided different statistics related to the Hatch-Waxman litigation and evaluated all stakeholders, including ANDA attorneys, law firms, pharmaceutical companies, and district court judges. In addition, we dedicated a full chapter to ANDA local counsel. We recently covered the litigation trends in Patexia 148, the ANDA lateral moves in Patexia 151, and the best performing pharma companies in Patexia 152. This week our focus will be on some of the top ANDA law firms ranked based on performance and activity.

From July 1, 2017, through June 30, 2022, a total of 1,439 ANDA cases were filed. This included 1,531 unique patents. During this five-year period, the full-year total of cases peaked at 349 in 2018, with softer ANDA activity in 2019, 2020, and 2021. However, early data from 2022 shows an increase promising with 21.5 cases/month filed in the first half, higher than the 19.9 cases/month in 2021. The following chart shows the activity in the last five years:

Out of the 1,439 cases filed during the past five years, 1,062 cases were terminated during the same period and were the basis for our success and performance scores. In total, 298 law firms were active. There were 177 law firms representing the brand and generic pharmaceutical companies in one or more of 1,439 ANDA cases. Additionally, 121 firms acted solely as local counsel. On average, these law firms participated in 16.5 cases; however, a handful of law firms were significantly more active than the other firms. There were 116 firms representing plaintiffs, and 119 firms represented defendants. Some firms were active on both sides, representing brand and generic pharma companies in different cases.

The following table is a list of some of the firms that made it to the top 50 in some categories for 2022, earning their mention either for high activity when compared to other competing firms or good performance:

Law Firm	All Cases	Defendant Cases	Plaintiff Cases	Rank	Category
Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan	114	1	113	1	Plaintiff Performance Rank
Locke Lord	74	72	2	2	Defendant Activity Rank
Katten Muchin Rosenman	67	61	6	3	Defendant Activity Rank
Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider	25	22	3	4	Defendant Performance Rank
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati	46	26	20	13	Defendant Performance Rank
Haug Partners	28	1	27	10	Plaintiff Performance Rank
Perkins Coie	28	21	7	22	Defendant Activity Rank
Carlson Caspers Vandenburgh & Lindquist, PA.	26	24	2	8	Defendant Performance Rank
Greenberg Traurig LLP	20	20	0	18	Defendant Performance Rank
Husch Blackwell LLP	13	12	1	30	Defendant Activity Rank
Polsinelli	13	10	3	38	Defendant Activity Rank
Alston & Bird	12	8	4	35	Defendant Performance Rank
Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton	6	0	6	45	Plaintiff Activity Rank

Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan ranked the best performing firm on the plaintiff side. They represented brand pharma companies in 113 cases during the last five years. Bristol Myers Squibb, Johnson & Johnson, and Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corporation were their main clients in ANDA litigation.
Locke Lord, with 72 cases, ranked the second most active law firm, representing generic pharma companies. The firm works closely with Cadila Healthcare Limited, Lupin Limited, and Zydus Lifesciences Limited.
Katten Muchin Rosenman, with a total of 61 cases on the defendant side, ranked the third most active firm for representing generic pharma companies. Apotex Holdings Inc. and Viatris Inc. were among firm’s top clients.
Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider ranks as the fourth best performing firm on the defendant side. Endo International, Alvogen as well as Cadila Healthcare were three of their main clients.
Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati ranked the 13th best performing firm on the defendant side. Viatris Inc. and Azurity Pharmaceuticals were their top two clients.
Haug Partners ranked the 10th best performing firm on the plaintiff side. Takeda Pharmaceutical, Supernus Pharmaceuticals, and Chiesi Farmaceutici were the top three clients of the firm.
Perkins Coie with 21 cases, representing the defendants, ranked as one of the most active firms on the defendant side. The firm worked closely with Viatris Inc. and Dr. Reddy's Laboratories.
Carlson Caspers ranked the eighth best performing firm when it came to the defendant side. With a total of 26 cases, they worked closely with Sun Pharma, Alkaloida Chemical, and Annora Pharma.
Greenberg Traurig LLP, with 20 cases, ranked the 18th best performing firm on the defendant side. The firm’s top clients were Teva Pharmaceuticals, Intas Pharmaceuticals, and Norac Pharma.
Husch Blackwell LLP ranked as one of the most active law firms for representing the generic pharmaceutical companies. Their main client for ANDA litigation was Handa Pharmaceuticals.
Polsinelli was ranked among the most active firms on the defendant side, representing Perrigo, Teva Pharmaceuticals, and Melinta Therapeutics, among their other clients.
Alston & Bird ranked among the best performing firms on defendant cases. Viatris Inc., Novartis, and Lupin Limited were the firm’s top clients for ANDA litigation.
Kilpatrick Townsend was among the most active firms for representing brand pharma companies Zogenix International Limited, UCB, and AstraZeneca were the top three clients of the firm for Hatch-Waxman litigation.

The full ANDA Litigation Intelligence Report provides the complete rankings for all the stakeholders. Similar to previous years, we have included a separate section and rankings for the local counsel firms and attorneys, very active in the New Jersey and Delaware district courts, where more than 90% of ANDA cases were filed.

RANKING METHODOLOGY

We calculated the Activity Score based on the number of ANDA cases filed and made the distinction if the company, attorney or law firm involved in the case came from the Brand or the Generic side, providing rankings in three categories of Overall, Plaintiff and Defendant. We slightly reduced the weight of the older cases. Therefore, an entity with five cases in 2022 ranks slightly higher than an entity with the same number of cases distributed throughout the past five years.

The Success Score was developed based on the outcomes of all terminated cases during the period of our study. PACER provides different termination statuses. However, sometimes they do not show the winning side. Ultimately we wanted to know which side came out stronger based on the conclusion, brand or plaintiff. Therefore, we manually reviewed those cases with statuses such as Judgment on Consent, Judgment - Motion Brief Trial, Judgment - Court Trial, and Judgment - Other. Then, based on their actual outcome and which side ultimately won the case, we regrouped them and assigned the success points as summarized in the table below:

Outcome	Plaintiff	Defendant	Plain. Atty/Firm	Def. Atty/Firm	Judge
Judgment - Defendant Wins	0	1	0	1	0
Judgment - Plaintiff Wins	1	0	1	0	1
Judgment - Settled	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5	-
Judgment - Consolidated	-	-	--	-	-
Judgment - Outcome Pending	-	-	-	-	-
Dismissed - Settled	0.5	0.5	0.5	0.5	-
Dismissed - Voluntarily	-	-	-	-	-
Dismissed - Other	-	-	-	-	-
Transfer/Remand - MDL Transfer	-	-	-	-	-
Statistical Closing	-	-	-	-	-
Non-reportable closing	-	-	-	-	-

While success scores are useful, when it comes to entities with different activity levels, success score is not enough by itself. For example, one law firm with just one victory has a success score of 100%, while another firm with nine out of ten winning cases will have a success score of 90%. To overcome this, we developed our Performance Score, calculated as a weighted average of Activity and Success scores. This additional scoring metric helps pharma companies find attorneys and law firms with extensive experience and a high success rate. In order to include as many participants in the rankings as possible, we decided to calculate the success and performance scores for all entities with at least one terminated case during the past five years.

In the following weeks, we will continue the Hatch-Waxman coverage. We are also preparing to release our second annual CAFC Intelligence Report in about a month. Stay tuned!