Jacob H. Rooksby

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

Let me verify the tracked case and whether there's a Finnegan attorney by this name.

Let me dig further on whether Finnegan appeared in this case and whether there's a distinct Finnegan attorney by this name.

Jacob H. Rooksby — patent litigation summary

Practice focus. The tracked record contains a single patent matter, and it sits squarely in biologics/biosimilar litigation: Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd., a member of Regeneron's aflibercept (EYLEA) BPCIA campaign consolidated as In re Aflibercept Patent Litigation, MDL No. 3103 (N.D. W. Va.). The asserted patents cover formulation, manufacturing-process, and method-of-treatment claims for a recombinant fusion protein — pharmaceutical/biotech chemistry rather than Wi-Fi/standards, software, or mechanical subject matter. With only one tracked appearance, there is no evidenced pattern across other technology areas.

Side preference. The sole tracked appearance is plaintiff-side, representing Regeneron — a brand-name operating company — as Lead Counsel. Nothing in the data shows defense-side work or NPE/PAE representation, and a one-case sample cannot support an inference of a plaintiff-only or NPE-oriented practice. On the current record, the most that can fairly be said is that his tracked work is patent-owner-side for a life-sciences innovator.

Firm context. The case list associates him with Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, the D.C.-based IP boutique. I could not independently confirm a Jacob H. Rooksby on Finnegan's public attorney roster, nor find him in the public filings I retrieved for the Regeneron/Samsung Bioepis matter, where Regeneron's counsel of record appeared as Williams & Connolly, Kellogg, Hansen, Todd, Figel & Frederick, and Bienert Katzman. This should be verified with the firm before relying on it. Note also a name collision with Jacob H. Rooksby, the IP scholar and former dean of Gonzaga University School of Law (now dean at the University of Richmond School of Law), whose career path — McGuireWoods, Cohen & Grigsby, FIG. 1 Patents, and bar admissions in Virginia, Pennsylvania, and Washington — is documented but may not belong to the attorney in this litigation record; I have not attributed it.

Notable case and outcome. Regeneron filed against Samsung Bioepis in November 2023 asserting 37 patents. The court entered a preliminary injunction in July 2024 barring Samsung Bioepis's Opuviz (aflibercept-yszy), and the Federal Circuit affirmed the preliminary injunctions against Samsung Bioepis and Formycon on January 29, 2025 (Nos. 24-1965 et al.). The parties settled in February 2026 and dismissed all claims and counterclaims, with the injunction and associated bond released. The dispute also had a substantial PTAB component — Samsung Bioepis's IPR2023-00442 invalidated claims of U.S. Patent 10,130,681, with further petitions in IPR2023-00884 and IPR2025-00176 (denied institution) — but those were filed by the opposing party, and I found no IPR/PGR filings naming Rooksby as counsel, so no independent PTAB practice can be confirmed.

Bar/education. Not reliably sourced for a Finnegan attorney of this name; omitted rather than attributed to the academic namesake.

Sourcing note: the technology-area, side, and firm characterizations rest on the authoritative case list plus public docket reporting (Bloomberg Law, JD Supra/Big Molecule Watch, Federal Circuit and N.D. W. Va. filings). The Finnegan affiliation and the specific appearance were not verifiable in open sources and warrant direct confirmation.