Bryan C. Diner

I'll research this attorney's professional background before drafting.

Let me verify the two tracked cases and any PTAB/appellate activity.

Let me verify Diner's specific role in the two tracked matters.

Professional Summary — Bryan C. Diner (Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner)

Specialty / focus. Diner's practice is substantially life sciences– and chemistry-focused, not standards/software work. Finnegan's own profile describes district court litigation, PTAB proceedings, portfolio management, prosecution, opinions, and IP due diligence, with litigation "ranging from protecting the rights of innovative pharmaceutical companies in Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) litigations to defending clients' right to use certain medical devices." His tracked matters bear that out on both ends of the spectrum: the Regeneron/Samsung Bioepis biologics dispute (BPCIA-type pharma) and Ethanol Boosting Systems v. Ford Motor (internal-combustion engine fuel-management patents). His technical background is chemical engineering, which is consistent with a chemical/pharma-formulation docket.

Side preference. The tracked record is split — one plaintiff-side appearance and one defendant-side appearance — and the broader practice confirms a two-sided docket. Publicly described matters skew toward representing brand pharmaceutical patent owners in Hatch-Waxman and biosimilar litigation (Valeant, Bausch + Lomb, Senju, Salix, Progenics), while the Ford matter and the medical-device work are defense-side. There is no indication of NPE/PAE prosecution practice.

Firm context. Diner is a partner at Finnegan in Washington, DC, where his entire tracked career is based (Reg. No. 32,409). He previously served as managing partner of Finnegan's Brussels office for six years, and his profile lists European portfolio and litigation counseling as a distinct part of his practice; he is fluent in French. No prior-firm history was found in the sources reviewed.

Notable matters and outcomes. The tracked Regeneron Pharmaceuticals v. Samsung Bioepis matter is part of the Eylea/aflibercept biosimilar litigation, which produced a precedential Federal Circuit ruling in January 2025 affirming personal jurisdiction over foreign biosimilar applicants and preserving a preliminary injunction (Regeneron also prevailed on the merits in parallel Dutch proceedings in October 2025 and the parties reportedly settled in February 2026). Note: public MDL filings list other firms as Regeneron's and Samsung's district court counsel, so the tracked "lead counsel" attribution likely reflects a specific docket entry rather than overall MDL leadership. The tracked Ethanol Boosting Systems, LLC v. Ford Motor Co. matter produced a July 2022 Federal Circuit decision (nonprecedential) vacating a Delaware non-infringement judgment on claim construction and remanding; Ford's appellate team of record was Alston & Bird, with Finnegan appearing in a supporting role. Other results attributed to him on firm/court-recognized biographies include permanent injunctions for Senju and Bausch + Lomb in the Prolensa® and Bepreve® ANDA cases, a permanent injunction for Valeant in the Carac® case, and summary judgment for Valeant, Salix, and Progenics on U.S. Patent No. 8,552,025 (subcutaneous Relistor®). These latter outcomes come from his firm profile and Benchmark Litigation's self-reported highlights and should be treated as firm-supplied rather than independently verified.

PTAB / IPR experience. He appears regularly at the PTAB, not occasionally. Docket records show him as lead counsel for the patent owner in IPR2014-01043, lead counsel for Eye Therapies, LLC in IPR2024-00563, and back-up counsel for Bausch Health Ireland in IPR2022-01105. His practice descriptions list parallel district court/PTAB coordination as a core competency, including cases in which PTAB wins were appealed and remanded.

Bar / education. B.S., chemical engineering, New Jersey Institute of Technology (1984); J.D., Seton Hall University School of Law (1987); admitted to the USPTO (1986), District of Columbia and New Jersey (both 1988), and the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey (1988).

Sources: Finnegan firm profile and press releases; Benchmark Litigation profile (updated Oct. 2025); IAM Patent 1000 profile; USPTO/PTAB filings (IPR2014-01043, IPR2022-01105, IPR2024-00563); Federal Circuit opinions in Ethanol Boosting Sys. v. Ford (Nos. 21-1949 and 24-1381); MLex and Law360 reporting on the Eylea biosimilar litigation; District Court (D. Del., N.D. W. Va.) dockets.