Andrew Roper’s strong technical ability, combined with his talent for drawing out the right facts, turns seemingly difficult cases into straightforward cases.
Andrew Roper is a partner in Haug Partners’ New York offices. The majority of his practice focuses on patent litigation. Additionally, he performs due diligences, and evaluations of IP assets. Mr. Roper also regularly works on appellate matters before the Federal Circuit.
- Supernus Pharms., Inc. v. TWi Pharms., Inc., 265 F. Supp. 3d 490, (trial victory aff’d Supernus Pharms. Inc. v. TWi Pharms. Inc, 2018 U.S. App. LEXIS 25271 (Fed. Cir. Sept. 6, 2018));
- CSL Behring v Shire Viropharma Inc. 2017 Pat. App. LEXIS 13304, *1-2 (P.T.A.B. December 7, 2017) (institution denied);
- Supernus Pharms., Inc. v. Actavis Inc., 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 30444 (D.N.J. Mar. 9, 2016) (trial victory aff’d Supernus Pharms., Inc. v. Actavis Inc., 665 Fed. Appx. 901 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 12, 2016));
- Shire LLC v. Amneal Pharms., LLC, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 85369 (D.N.J. June 23, 2014) (summary judgment victory aff’d Shire, LLC v. Amneal Pharms., LLC, 802 F.3d 1301 (Fed. Cir. 2015));
- Otter Prods., LLC v. United States, 37 F. Supp. 3d 1306 (Ct. Int’l Trade 2014) (denying emergency motion to stay US Customs and Border Protection’s enforcement of ITC’s General Exclusion Order); Otter v. ITC and Speculative Product Design, No. 14-1480, ECF Nos. 25, 34 (Fed. Cir. 2014) (denying emergency motions to stay enforcement of US Customs and Border Protection's ITC General Exclusion Order);
- Duramed Pharms., Inc. v. Paddock Labs., Inc., 715 F. Supp. 2d 552 (S.D.N.Y. 2010) (summary judgment victory aff’d Duramed Pharms., Inc. v. Paddock Labs., Inc., 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 3384 (Fed. Cir. Feb. 17, 2011).
- Roper, Andrew, and Michael Harris. “Standing to Appeal Post-Grant Proceedings: A Brief Review of Recent Federal Circuit Opinions.” Haug Partners, 15 Apr. 2021, www.haugpartners.com/article/standing-to-appeal-post-grant-proceedings-a-brief-review-of-recent-federal-circuit-opinions/.
- Roper, Andrew, and Chinmay Bagwe. “Venue in Hatch-Waxman Litigation: What Courts Decided and What Litigants Are Still Fighting Over.” Haug Partners, 8 Dec. 2020, www.haugpartners.com/article/venue-in-hatch-waxman-litigation-what-courts-decided-and-what-litigants-are-still-fighting-over/.
- Roper, Andrew, and Michael Harris. “Vectura Ltd. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC: Federal Circuit Panel Affirms Vectura's $90 Million Damages Award.” Haug Partners, 1 Dec. 2020, www.haugpartners.com/article/vectura-ltd-v-glaxosmithkline-llc-federal-circuit-panel-affirms-vecturas-90-million-damages-award/.
- Roper, Andrew, and Ali Berkin, Ph.D. “How Different Claim Construction Standards Can Ultimately Determine the Validity of a Patent.” Haug Partners, 24 Nov. 2020, www.haugpartners.com/article/how-different-claim-construction-standards-can-ultimately-determine-the-validity-of-a-patent/.
- Case Western Reserve University, (B.S.E., Chemical Engineering, 2004)
- University of Virginia School of Law, (J.D., 2007)
- New York
- Eastern District of New York
- Southern District of New York
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- Court of International Trade
- Registered to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- New York Intellectual Property Law Association
- Federal Circuit Bar Association