Amanda S. Murphy

I'll research this attorney's background and verify the tracked case details.

The search returned a possible name mismatch — let me disambiguate and verify the Regeneron case.

Let me nail down the name discrepancy and check the Regeneron/Bioepis counsel listings.

Identity caveat (read first). The tracked record lists "Amanda S. Murphy" (middle initial "S," role "Counsel") at Finnegan in Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. I could not confirm a Finnegan attorney by that exact name. Every publicly available Finnegan profile matching "Amanda Murphy" in patent practice is Amanda K. Murphy, Ph.D., a Finnegan partner (Washington, DC / London) in the firm's Bio/Pharm practice group. The summary below describes that attorney, and the "S"/"K" and "Counsel"/"Partner" discrepancies should be confirmed before the profile is relied on. I also note that publicly filed dockets in the aflibercept biosimilar litigation (N.D. W. Va. / MDL No. 3103) identify Regeneron's counsel as Williams & Connolly, Kellogg Hansen, and Weil Gotshal, and do not list Finnegan on the face of those filings; the Finnegan connection to the Regeneron–Samsung Bioepis dispute may arise in related PTAB proceedings rather than the district court docket.

Specialty / focus. This is a life sciences IP practice, not a standards/Wi-Fi or mechanical practice. Technical areas reported on the firm profile include biologics and antibodies/ADCs, vaccines, gene therapy (AAV vectors, CRISPR), anticoagulants and blood clotting factors, oncology and antiviral small molecules, lipid nanoparticles, diagnostics and detection assays, and drug formulations. The tracked case is consistent with that focus: Regeneron's aflibercept (Eylea) franchise is a large-molecule BPCIA/biosimilar dispute.

Side preference. The tracked data shows 1 plaintiff-side appearance and 0 defendant-side appearances, which is too thin a sample to establish a preference. The web-verified experience runs substantially the other way and is genuinely mixed: representation of Novartis as defendant against Genzyme's AAV/Zolgensma infringement actions, CSL Behring as defendant in Shire ViroPharma v. CSL Behring (Haegarda), and AbbVie in Hatch-Waxman litigation over Norvir, alongside offensive PTAB work as petitioner (Capsugel, CSL Behring).

Firm context. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner is the only firm in the tracked record and the only one appearing in public profiles; she has been at Finnegan since her time as a technical specialist and student associate during law school, aside from a Federal Circuit clerkship. She is based in Washington, DC and London.

Notable matters and PTAB experience. Reported results include a 2012 jury verdict for Avid on inventorship/ownership in amyloid-beta litigation (affirmed, Fed. Cir. 2013, with an exceptional-case fee finding) and a defense win for Novartis in the Genzyme AAV litigation, which settled after four patents were invalidated at claim construction, five were found not literally infringed, and multiple IPRs were instituted. PTAB practice is a core, recurring part of the profile: she has acted as petitioner and patent owner in IPRs and PGRs, including GSK/Pfenex vaccine IPRs (IPR2019-01027, -01028), CSL Behring matters (named back-up counsel in IPR2019-00459; also PGR2018-00072), and Capsugel v. Innercap (IPR2013-00331, institution followed by adverse judgment against the patent owner). Note that in the aflibercept IPRs, the Board denied institution of Samsung Bioepis's and Formycon's challenges to U.S. Patent No. 11,084,865 in June 2025; I found no source confirming this attorney's role in those particular proceedings.

Bar / education. B.S. and Ph.D., Cornell University; J.D., Georgetown University Law Center (2010); admitted in Washington, DC (2011); USPTO Reg. No. 59,387; former law clerk to Judge S. Jay Plager, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2011–2012); adjunct professor, Georgetown University Law Center (patent prosecution practice, 2013–present).