Lance A. Soderstrom

I'll research this attorney before writing the summary.

Let me verify the tracked case and PTAB activity.

One more check on prior firm history and bar admissions.

Lance A. Soderstrom — Partner and Co-Chair, Patent Litigation, Katten Muchin Rosenman LLP (New York)

Specialty / focus. Soderstrom's practice centers on pharmaceutical patent litigation, particularly Hatch-Waxman/ANDA disputes, with a technical background in pharmaceutical engineering. Katten's own practice description and IAM Patent 1000 (which ranks him among top ANDA litigators) credit him with litigating hundreds of patents spanning pharmaceutical compounds and formulations, medical devices, and computer software. Reported subject-matter experience includes Type 2 diabetes (DPP-4 inhibitors), Parkinson's disease/restless legs syndrome (rotigotine), pulmonary arterial hypertension, chronic lymphocytic leukemia (bendamustine), irritable bowel syndrome with constipation (linaclotide), deep vein thrombosis (rivaroxaban), acne (Evoclin topical foam), colonoscopy cleansing preparations, and, outside life sciences, voice/call-recording software, online career services, prenatal folates, and a plant patent dispute. IP Stars also lists ITC litigation among his practice areas.

Side preference. Overwhelmingly defense-side. In the tracked data he has zero plaintiff-side and one defendant-side appearance, and that pattern matches the public record: he is repeatedly identified as lead trial counsel for large generic pharmaceutical companies (Mylan and Lupin among them) defending ANDA challenges brought by brand manufacturers. I found no evidence of NPE/PAE plaintiff-side prosecution work.

Firm context. Soderstrom joined Katten Muchin Rosenman as a partner in its New York IP group in May 2018, alongside Deepro R. Mukerjee and Dr. Jitendra "Jitty" Malik, all three arriving from Alston & Bird LLP. At Alston he practiced in the same pharma patent litigation group (court filings and 2017 firm press releases list him as a senior associate on Mylan matters). He is also a Special Liaison to the Board of Managers for Katten Muchin Rosenman UK LLP.

Tracked case. The one tracked appearance is Neurelis, Inc. v. Lupin Inc. et al. (D. Del.), an ANDA case over Lupin's proposed generic of Valtoco (diazepam nasal spray, 5/7.5/10 mg). Soderstrom is listed as merits counsel on the Lupin defense side; related complaints were filed in 2025 and 2026, with a bench trial scheduled. The case remains pending, so there is no outcome to report. Broader publicly described results include a Federal Circuit reversal of an adverse claim construction followed by a non-infringement trial win in the Northern District of West Virginia (pulmonary arterial hypertension); a bench non-infringement judgment in Delaware (bendamustine/CLL) affirmed by the Federal Circuit under Rule 36; a non-infringement judgment plus attorney's fees in Delaware in the sodium picosulfate pre-colonoscopy cleansing litigation; dismissal of Glenmark's antitrust counterclaims in the Evoclin acne foam dispute; and the Mylan/Shire Lialda (mesalamine) dispute in which the Federal Circuit cleared the way for Mylan's generic, per Alston & Bird's 2017 announcements. Note that some descriptions of results come from firm-authored materials and should be independently verified before reliance.

PTAB / IPR experience. Documented but not a high-volume PTAB practice in the sources reviewed. USPTO records (Reg. No. 65,405) show him as backup counsel for Mylan in IPR2020-00040 (Mylan Pharmaceuticals v. Merck Sharp & Dohme, U.S. Patent 7,326,708), and he appears in PTAB filings during his Alston & Bird tenure. Katten's Hatch-Waxman group description notes PTAB capability generally.

Bar / education. Admitted in New York; registered to practice before the USPTO (Reg. No. 65,405). JD, University of Michigan Law School; MS in Pharmaceutical Engineering and BSE, University of Michigan.

Caveat: the tracked case list reflects only one appearance, while the firm, directory, and court-filing record shows a substantially larger docket; the discrepancy is likely a coverage gap in the underlying database rather than a difference in practice.