Patexia Insight 86: Best Firms for ANDA Litigation in 2020
This morning we released our first ANDA Litigation Intelligence Report. For the first time, we ranked all attorneys and law firms by their activity and performance for Hatch-Waxman litigation. Our research team analyzed the outcome of 976 ANDA cases filed by pharmaceutical companies from June 1, 2017, through June 1, 2020.
For a total of 551 terminated cases, we identified the outcome (e.g., non-infringement, invalidity, settlement, etc.). Then, depending on the outcome and win/loss of parties (i.e., defendants and plaintiffs), we allocated points to each side, including the law firms and attorneys representing them to calculate their performance. The ANDA litigation is very important for both brand and generic pharmaceutical companies as the outcome sometimes can significantly impact their profitability.
This 114-page report, which covers all of the nearly 240 law firms, 1,105 attorneys including local counsel, 320 pharmaceutical companies (generic and brand), as well as 97 judges is available to Patexia Concierge members on the site and in PDF format. It can also be purchased online through Patexia, but here we will cover some of the highlights including a number of the top law firms, as identified and covered in our 2020 report.
Out of a total of 976 ANDA cases filed during the period of our study, as of June 25, 2020, a total of 551 cases had been terminated, while the rest were in different phases and were still pending.
As we explained in the report (Section 1 - Ranking Methodology) and will summarize it here, we designed a method to measure the activity and performance of all stakeholders. As for the activity, it was simple: we counted all of the ANDA cases in which a company or its representatives (i.e., law firms or attorneys) were named in one of the public documents available through PACER (e.g., complaint or power of attorney). For the performance calculation, we used the following table to first calculate the success for each party, and then using a weighted average function, calculate the performance as a function of both activity and success.
The ANDA cases analyzed were represented by 10 official PACER outcome classifications:
- Judgment - Judgment on Consent
- Judgment - Motion Brief Trial
- Judgment - Court Trial
- Judgment - Other
- Dismissed - Settled
- Dismissed - Voluntarily
- Dismissed - Other
- Transfer/Remand - MDL Transfer
- Statistical Closing
- Non-reportable Closing
Six of these PACER classifications (numbers 5 through 10) are listed directly in table below. The four other outcomes in the table, reflect a case's practical outcome, as drawn from a case-by-case analysis of all cases within the remaining four (numbers 1 through 4), PACER "Judgment" categories. Of all categories of case closures in the following table, only four are scorable. Blank entries (dashes) in any columns/rows indicate the respective participant was not scored for that particular outcome.
| 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 |
- |
- | - | - | - |
We measured both activity and performance, for three separate categories:
- Defendants
- Plaintiffs
- Overall
We ended up with a total of six categories. We ranked the Best Performing and Most Active law firms for the period of this study.
Since more than 90 percent of all cases had been filed in either Delaware or New Jersey District Courts, local counsel and their impact on the outcome of the cases became clear (e.g., their past experience with ANDA cases, familiarity with the venue, judges, etc.). So we also decided to dedicate a separate section to local counsel and rank the most active counsel.
Here are some of the highlights from the report (in alphabetical order):
- Alston & Bird with a total of 3 ANDA cases (all on the generic side), ranked the 29th Best Performing Firm for representing defendants. The firm was also among the Top 50 Most Active ones.
- Carlson Caspers with 12 cases and representing defendants in all of them, was one of the Top 10 Best Performing Firms for representing generic pharmaceuticals (defendants). In terms of activity, the firm was ranked the 18th Most Active firm for representing generic pharmaceuticals. The firm was ranked as one of the Top 25 Best Performing firms overall.
- Husch Blackwell with a total of 9 cases was ranked in the Top 50 in multiple categories, including 26th Most Active Firm for representing generic pharmaceuticals. The firm is mainly active on the generic side although they have also been active on the brand side and ranked the 50th Most Active firm for representing brand pharmaceuticals. In terms of performance, the firm is among the top 50 for both brand and generic pharmaceuticals.
- Knobbe Martens with a total fo 12 cases, only represented generic pharmaceuticals (defendants). In terms of activity, Knobbe is the 13th Most Active firm for representing defendants. In terms of performance, we were not able to rank the firm yet as none of the 12 cases for the period of the study had reached a conclusion.
- Merchant & Gould has been involved in 12 ANDA cases during the 3-year period of our study. In all cases, the firm represented the generic pharmaceuticals and was ranked the 13th Most Active Firm for representing defendants in ANDA cases. In terms of overall activity, the firm was the 26th Most Active Firm for ANDA litigation.
- Paul Weiss with a total of 11 ANDA cases on the brand side was the 11th Most Active Firm for representing brand pharmaceuticals. None of the 11 cases had reached any conclusion at the time of publishing our ANDA report. The firm was among the Top 50 Most Active firms overall.
- Perkins Coie was involved in a total of 5 ANDA cases, representing defendants (generic) in all the cases. Perkins Coie was ranked the 37th Most Active Firm for representing generic pharmaceuticals. None of the 5 cases had reached any conclusion at the time of this publication.
- Polsinelli with a total of 3 ANDA cases, representing generic pharmaceuticals for the period of this study, was ranked among the Top 50 Most Active firms for representing defendants. All cases were still pending when we published our ANDA report.
- Saiber was one of the most active firms acted as local counsel in the state of New Jersey. The firm was involved in a total of 30 ANDA cases. The firm was ranked the 10th Most Active Firms for representing defendants in 22 ANDA cases. Overall Saiber was the 15th Most Active firm among the local counsel.
- Walsh Pizzi was the 6th Most Active local counsel for representing brand pharmaceuticals in 28 ANDA cases. The firm represented both brand and generic pharmaceuticals in a total of 51 ANDA cases during the period of our study. Walsh Pizzi was ranked the 11th Most Active local counsel overall.
The full 114-page PDF report, covering numerous ANDA statistics and the Top 100 in six categories, together with an extended list of 864 attorneys, 240 law firms, 320 pharmaceutical companies, 97 judges, and 250 local counsel in an Excel file is available and can be downloaded from the ANDA Litigation Intelligence Report page. If your firm or company is a member of Patexia Concierge, you can download it by logging in to the site and clicking the “Download” button on the report page.
In the following weeks, we will publish more statistics related to ANDA litigation and IPR, as we also prepare to release our 4th annual IPR Intelligence Report. Stay tuned...