Laura L. Fairneny

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Laura L. Fairneny — Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan (New York)

Focus areas. Fairneny's practice centers on life sciences and medical technology patent litigation. Her firm bio describes patent infringement work in "offensive and defensive matters" across medical devices, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, and her docket reflects the same profile: Hatch-Waxman/ANDA brand-side cases, BPCIA biosimilar disputes, surgical-device and catheter patents, PCR/DNA-sequencing technology, and one Section 337 investigation at the ITC involving set-top boxes. There is no indication of standards-essential (Wi-Fi/SEP), consumer-software, or electronics patent work in her record; the technology mix skews heavily toward pharma/biologic and mechanical-medical.

Side preference. The tracked appearance is a single defense-side matter (Samsung Bioepis, as defendant). That understates the picture: her published case list is predominantly brand/patent-owner side — Hatch-Waxman enforcement actions for Vifor (VELTASSA), Allergan (LINZESS), Neos Therapeutics (ADZENYS XR-ODT, COTEMPLA XR-ODT), Forest Laboratories (NAMENDA XR), and Tyco Healthcare's trocar patents — alongside defense work for Pfizer/Merck KGaA (BAVENCIO), Covidien, Life Technologies, and Cablevision. Nothing in the record suggests NPE/PAE representation; the practice is operating-company work on both sides of the "v."

Firm context. Fairneny has been at Quinn Emanuel's New York office since 2009 and was elected partner effective January 1, 2017 (the firm's partner-election announcement lists her as a New York-based pharma/medical device/biotech patent litigator). The docket in the tracked Regeneron v. Samsung Bioepis matter lists her as counsel of record. Before joining Quinn Emanuel she clerked for Judge Legrome D. Davis of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (2008–09). No prior law-firm history surfaced in searches.

Notable matters and PTAB. In the tracked case — Regeneron Pharmaceuticals v. Samsung Bioepis, part of the multi-front aflibercept/EYLEA® BPCIA campaign — she was on the Samsung Bioepis team in IPR2023-00884 challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,253,572; the PTAB entered adverse judgment against Regeneron on July 23, 2024 after Regeneron disclaimed all claims of the patent, a favorable result for her client. She is not a registered patent practitioner; she appeared in that IPR by pro hac vice admission, with a registered practitioner as lead counsel. Outcomes adverse to that client elsewhere in the campaign are well documented — the Federal Circuit affirmed the N.D. W. Va. preliminary injunction against Samsung Bioepis's Opuviz® based on the '865 patent (Regeneron Pharms., Inc. v. Samsung Bioepis Co., 127 F.4th 896 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2025)). Firm-published results credited to her include consent judgments with injunctions in the VELTASSA, LINZESS, NAMENDA XR and Neos matters; a jury verdict of infringement and damages for Tyco Healthcare; summary judgment of non-infringement for Covidien; and a "no violation" finding on all asserted patents for Cablevision at the ITC. She also appeared pro hac vice for Calliditas Therapeutics in Calliditas Therapeutics AB v. Qilu Pharmaceutical (D. Del., 2026), a matter not reflected in the tracked list.

Bar / education. Admitted in New York (2009) and Massachusetts; J.D., University of Virginia School of Law (2008), Virginia Law Review editorial board, Order of the Coif; B.A., University of Virginia. Named a Law360 Rising Star in Life Sciences (2017) and a Super Lawyers Rising Star in IP litigation (2017–19).

Note: the plaintiff/defendant counts above come from the single tracked appearance; the broader case inventory is drawn from her published firm biography and docket filings, which are less complete than a full PACER/PTAB docket review.