Aug 26, 2020Legal
Patexia Insight 87: Best ANDA Litigators in 2020

Last week we released our first ANDA/Hatch-Waxman Litigation Intelligence Report. Similar to our other IP Insight reports, this time we ranked the top ANDA firms and litigators based on activity and performance. Our research team analyzed the outcome of 976 ANDA cases filed between June 1, 2017, and June 1, 2020, which involved 320 brand and generic pharmaceutical companies. A total of 1,105 attorneys represented these companies as either lead or local counsel. This week, we highlight some of the most active or best-performing Hatch-Waxman litigators according to our 2020 report.

ANDA 2020

















In Patexia Insight 86 we covered some of the top law firms by activity and performance. The full 114-page report covers about 240 law firms including local and lead counsel. However, there is a difference between the law firm and attorney rankings. For example, Katten Muchin Rosenmanranked the 3rd Best Performing firm or Buchanan Ingersoll was the 22nd Best Performing firm both for representing defendants (generic pharmaceuticals). But this does not mean that the ANDA attorneys working for these firms also had the exact same rankings. Their rankings may be higher or lower than the firm’s rankings depending on several factors:

  • We look at all ANDA cases the attorneys have had over the period of the study. For example, if an attorney has joined a firm in 2020 but hasn’t been active in any new ANDA cases, his ranking is mainly due to the work he did at his previous firm. In other words, he does not immediately contribute or impact the rankings of his new firm.
  • A firm may concurrently work on several ANDA cases.  This would increase the activity rank of the firm but attorneys may only be active in some of those ANDA cases at any given time.

There are other reasons that may cause a difference between the rankings of attorneys and law firms. As a result, the activity or performance of an attorney will not necessarily reflect that of his firm. And this is the main reason that for the preparation of this report (and other reports), we asked all attorneys and law firms to verify their cases independently.

To measure the performance, we first tried to calculate the success rate for each attorney. For a total of 551 terminated cases (out of a total of 976), we identified the outcome (e.g., non-infringement, invalidity, settlement, etc.). Then, based on that outcome and win/loss of parties (i.e., defendants and plaintiffs), we allocated points to each attorney, representing each of the parties.

We explained our ranking model in detail in the Methodology Chapter of the report. To summarize, we counted all the ANDA cases in which an attorney has been named in the attorney-page provided through PACER. For the performance calculation, we used the following table to first calculate the success for each attorney, and then using a weighted average function, calculated the performance as a function of both activity and success. The reason we decided to combine both activity and success was that companies would like to hire attorneys who are both highly active and highly successful at litigating ANDA cases (i.e., Best Performing = Highly Active + Highly Successful)

The ANDA cases analyzed were represented by 10 official PACER outcome classifications:

  1. Judgment - Judgment on Consent
  2. Judgment - Motion Brief Trial
  3. Judgment - Court Trial
  4. Judgment - Other
  5. Dismissed - Settled
  6. Dismissed - Voluntarily
  7. Dismissed - Other
  8. Transfer/Remand - MDL Transfer
  9. Statistical Closing
  10. 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-PlaintiffDefendantPlain. Atty/FirmDef. Atty/FirmJudge
Non-reportable closing


Judgment - Defendant Wins


Judgment - Plaintiff Wins10101
Judgment - Settled0.
Judgment - Consolidated------
Judgment - Outcome Pending-----
Dismissed - Settled0.
Dismissed - Voluntarily-----
Dismissed - Other-----
Transfer/Remand - MDL Transfer-----
Statistical Closing-----


We measured both activity and performance, for three separate categories: Defendants, Plaintiffs and Overall.

We ended up with a total of six categories and ranked the Best Performing and Most Active attorneys for the period of this study.

Also because of the importance of the two most popular litigation venues (Delaware and New Jersey District Courts) that covered more than 90 percent of all ANDA cases, we had a separate category dedicated to local counsel activities. These attorneys could significantly impact the outcome of the case as they are familiar with the venue, judges and many of them have also been involved in numerous ANDA cases.

Here we highlight some of the ANDA attorneys among the top 25 from different categories.  Being named among the top 25 out of 1,105 attorneys means the attorney is in the top 2.5 percent (for the complete list and all categories, please refer to the full report):

The full 114-page PDF report, covering numerous ANDA statistics and the Top 100 in six categories, together with an extended list of 864 lead counsel and 250 local counsel, 240 law firms, 320 pharmaceutical companies, 97 judges 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 for free by logging in and clicking the “Download” button on the report page.

In the following weeks, we will continue publishing about ANDA and IPR, as we prepare to release our 4th annual IPR Intelligence Report. Stay tuned...

Be the first to comment.