Pedram Sameni
Sep 29, 2022

Patexia Insight 153: Top ANDA Firms of 2022

ANDA Litigation

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


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


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




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.


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


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!