Patexia Insight 196: Top ANDA Firms of 2023
In late August of this year, our ANDA Intelligence 2023 Report was released, a comprehensive study, covering the Hatch-Waxman litigation within US district courts. The report focused on the period from July 1, 2018, through June 30, 2023, encapsulating a total of 1,428 ANDA cases filed within this timeframe.
We carefully compiled an extensive array of statistical data, aiming to offer invaluable insights into the nuances of Hatch-Waxman litigation. Moreover, our objective extended beyond presenting statistical data; it encompassed the evaluation and ranking of all implicated stakeholders. From ANDA attorneys and law firms to pharmaceutical companies and district court judges, each contributor's role and impact were examined and evaluated. Our commitment to an exhaustive analysis prompted dedicated chapters within the report, focused on ANDA local counsel firms and attorneys. Recognizing the distinct role of these entities, we sought to highlight their significance, considering the evident trend of multiple entities acting in the capacity of local counsel. Additionally, this year marked a significant milestone as we introduced a distinct section specifically devoted to spotlighting attorneys who not only garnered high rankings from our analysis but also received written reviews from their opposing counsels, former colleagues, or outside counsel on our website.
In our previous Patexia Insights, we explored the top ANDA brand and generic companies based on their performance, while this week focuses on some of the best ANDA law firms. These firms have earned their positions through either a high level of activity or their performance within the realm of Hatch-Waxman litigation.
The chart above shows the dynamic landscape of ANDA cases filed and the associated patents over the past five years throughout our study. A total of 1,428 cases were filed, with yearly filings peaking during 2019 at 318 cases, while subsequent years, particularly 2020 and 2021, experienced a decline in ANDA activity. However, a resurgence was observed in 2022, registering 263 cases, a noteworthy upturn in these legal proceedings. The first half of 2023 also saw a rise with 149 filed cases, compared to the 135 cases filed in the same period in 2022. The preliminary data for 2023, with the latest update available in early December, shows that 255 cases have been filed, indicating a recent consistent pace in legal proceedings.
We identified 226 unique firms active in ANDA litigation. These law firms represented either brands or generics in one or more of the 1,428 ANDA cases examined, with an exception made for firms primarily functioning as local counsel. Among these firms, 154 were dedicated to representing plaintiffs, while 153 were involved in advocating for defendants. Notably, a subset of these law firms were active on both sides across various cases. On average, the law firms — whether representing plaintiffs, defendants, or both — showed an approximate involvement in 13.8 cases. However, our analysis shows a select cluster of firms that showcased a significantly high caseload. Additionally, our analysis went beyond activity levels, delving into the ultimate outcomes of the ANDA cases to evaluate the performance scores of these law firms. Further details about this ranking methodology and the criteria used to assess the performance of these law firms will be elaborated below.
The table below showcases select law firms that have earned a place among the top 50 in various categories for the year 2023. These firms have been recognized either due to their high activity levels or performance within in ANDA litigation.
| Law Firm | All Cases | Defendant Cases | Plaintiff Cases | Rank | Category |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Taft Stettinius & Hollister LLP |
44 |
43 | 1 | 1 | Defendant Performance Rank |
| Axinn Veltrop & Harkrider | 27 | 24 | 3 | 2 | Defendant Performance Rank |
| Locke Lord | 78 | 75 | 4 | 2 | Defendant Activity Rank |
| Katten Muchin Rosenman | 76 | 71 | 5 | 3 | Defendant Activity Rank |
| Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan | 99 | 5 | 94 | 3 | Plaintiff Activity Rank |
| McDermott Will & Emery | 54 | 5 | 49 | 5 | Plaintiff Performance Rank |
| Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox | 64 | 52 | 14 | 6 | Defendant Activity Rank |
| Kratz & Barry | 39 | 38 | 1 | 7 | Defendant Activity Rank |
| Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati | 73 | 41 | 32 | 8 | Overall Activity Rank |
| Carlson Caspers Vandenburgh & Lindquist, PA. | 27 | 24 | 3 | 17 | Defendant Activity Rank |
| Withersworldwide |
32 |
31 | 1 | 18 | Defendant Activity Rank |
| Alston & Bird | 21 | 19 | 2 | 25 | Defendant Performance Rank |
| Greenberg Traurig LLP | 16 | 16 | 0 | 29 | Defendant Activity Rank |
| Padmanabhan & Dawson, PLLC | 6 | 6 | 0 | 40 | Defendant Performance Rank |
| Polsinelli | 12 | 6 | 6 | 41 | Defendant Performance Rank |
| Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton | 8 | 2 | 6 | 46 | Plaintiff Activity Rank |
RANKING METHODOLOGY
In our assessments, we highlight two key scoring mechanisms: the Activity Score and the Success Score, each designed to evaluate entities' proficiency within ANDA litigation.
The Activity Score is calculated by considering the number of ANDA cases filed and offering rankings across the Overall, Plaintiff, and Defendant categories, according to the side represented. To adjust for relevance, we slightly reduced the weight of older cases. This ensured that an entity with a concentration of cases in the most recent year holds slightly more weight than an entity with the same number of cases spread over a longer duration.
Conversely, the Success Score was developed by analyzing the outcomes of terminated cases within our study period. Given that PACER statuses might not always indicate the winning side, we manually reviewed cases with specific statuses such as Judgment on Consent, Judgment - Motion Brief Trial, Judgment - Court Trial, and Judgment - Other. Through this thorough process, we determined the actual outcomes and which side, either brand or generic, emerged stronger. Subsequently, we regrouped these cases and assigned success points as detailed in the table below. This method aimed to decipher the prevailing side's success based on the case conclusion, offering a comprehensive assessment of performance.
| 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 |
- |
- | - | - | - |
The Success Score alone might not suffice when comparing entities with varying activity levels. For instance, a law firm with one victory could attain a success score of 100%, while another firm with a track record of nine wins out of ten cases might achieve a success score of 90%. To address this disparity, we introduced the Performance Score, a weighted average derived from both Activity and Success scores. This metric enables pharmaceutical companies to identify attorneys and law firms boasting considerable experience coupled with a high success rate. To ensure inclusivity within the rankings, we computed success and performance scores for all entities involved in at least one terminated case over the past five years. This approach aims to encompass a broader spectrum of participants within the assessment.
Stay tuned, as in the coming weeks, we will be spotlighting some of the foremost attorneys who have excelled in ANDA litigation.