Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Handa Neuroscience, LLC et al.

Case Overview & Background

Parties and accused product. This is a Hatch-Waxman (35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2)) ANDA suit brought by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation — the Delaware-incorporated, East Hanover, NJ-based innovator that markets GILENYA® (fingolimod) capsules 0.5 mg for relapsing-remitting multiple sclerosis — against the Handa group, a Taiwanese-headquartered specialty pharmaceutical company (founder/President Dr. Fangyu Liu) whose U.S. subsidiaries share an office at 1732 N. First St., San Jose, CA. The defendants are: Handa Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Taiwan HQ/R&D center), Handa Pharma, Inc. (Delaware corp., business/IP/regulatory), Handa Pharmaceuticals, LLC (generics business), and Handa Neuroscience, LLC (California LLC, brand-neuroscience unit and NDA holder) — all described by Judge Stark as "small pharmaceutical companies" (~50 employees worldwide, ~10 in the U.S., under $10M annual revenue). The accused product is HND-020 / TASCENSO ODT™, Handa's 505(b)(2) NDA No. 214962 for fingolimod orally disintegrating tablets 0.5 mg (and 0.25 mg), a Gilenya alternative, submitted with a Paragraph IV certification alleging the asserted patents are invalid, unenforceable, and/or not infringed. FDA granted tentative approval in October 2021 and final approval for the 0.5 mg strength in December 2022. The suit asserts U.S. Patent No. 9,187,405 ("'405," a method of treating RRMS by daily oral fingolimod 0.5 mg absent an immediately preceding loading-dose regimen — the "negative limitation" claim that later split the Federal Circuit) and U.S. Patent No. 10,543,179 ("'179," a method of treating MS patients at risk of varicella-zoster virus (VZV) reactivation with daily 0.5 mg fingolimod, per Handa's contemporaneous Taiwan securities disclosure), both expiring around December 25, 2027.

Procedural posture and venue. Filed May 6, 2021 in the Northern District of California, San Jose Division (No. 3:21-cv-03397, later 5:21-cv-03397-EJD), assigned to Judge Edward J. Davila with Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen on discovery — two days after Novartis filed an identical suit in Delaware (D. Del. No. 1:21-cv-00645, Judge Leonard P. Stark). Judge Stark's March 1, 2022 opinion explicitly characterized the California action as "merely a 'safety suit' to protect the Hatch-Waxman 30-month stay" filed within the 45-day window so Novartis would not forfeit the automatic stay if Delaware venue were attacked; he denied Handa's motion to dismiss/transfer, rejecting transfer to N.D. Cal. despite Handa's "nerve center" there (while denying without prejudice the venue challenge as to Handa Neuroscience, which Novartis argued was a sham entity created to manufacture California venue). In N.D. Cal., Handa moved for judgment on the pleadings (Dkt. 24, targeting the '179 patent with VZV/zoster-vaccine prior art) and Novartis moved to stay in favor of the first-filed Delaware case. After Judge Stark's ruling, Judge Davila ordered a joint status report (Dkt. 78, Mar. 11, 2022) and the parties filed a stipulation resulting in an order on the stay motions (Dkts. 79–82, Mar. 16, 2022). The case was ultimately dismissed after the parties' global settlement — per Handa's Taiwan securities filing, a settlement agreement was signed October 24, 2022 under which Novartis withdrew all related suits with no monetary payment to Novartis, and the parallel Delaware case terminated October 26, 2022. (Caveat: a third-party database lists the N.D. Cal. case as "terminated" as of 2022-03-18, which may reflect the stay/administrative closure rather than the later dismissal; the precise dismissal-order entry in N.D. Cal. was not independently verified.)

Why it matters. The case is a textbook illustration of the branded-generic "safety suit" playbook: dual filings to preserve the 30-month stay while the first-filed forum is litigated, and Judge Stark's opinion is a notable treatment of plaintiff-forum preference, the first-filed rule, and venue-manipulation allegations (including alter-ego/veil-piercing discovery over whether Handa created the California LLC to escape Delaware). It is also tightly linked to the GILENYA® patent wars: the '405 patent was the subject of the Federal Circuit's January 3, 2022 decision in Novartis v. Accord/HEC (written-description sufficiency of the "absent a loading dose" negative limitation, with Chief Judge Moore's famous "silence is not disclosure" dissent) — the backdrop for Handa's invalidity theories and both parties' forum preferences. Market context: Gilenya was a multi-billion-dollar MS franchise, and Handa's TASCENSO ODT was the first orally disintegrating fingolimod product (including a novel 0.25 mg strength); the no-payment settlement cleared the way for Handa's U.S. launch ahead of the patents' 2027 expiry. The case is not an NPE assertion — both sides are product companies — but it illustrates how 505(b)(2) filers and Paragraph IV certification strategy collide with method-of-use patents covering dosing regimens and patient-safety subpopulations.

Key Legal Developments — Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Handa Neuroscience, LLC et al., No. 5:21-cv-03397-EJD (N.D. Cal.)

Prepared 2026-08-22. This case was a "safety suit" filed two days after the first-filed Delaware action and was resolved as part of the parties' October 2022 global settlement. Where a fact rests on inference or partial docket data, it is flagged.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2021-05-04 — Novartis filed the first-filed case in the District of Delaware: Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Handa Neuroscience, LLC et al., No. 1:21-cv-00645-LPS (later -MN, then -GBW), asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 9,187,405 ("'405") and 10,543,179 ("'179") against the four Handa entities based on Handa's § 505(b)(2) NDA No. 214962 for fingolimod orally disintegrating tablets 0.5 mg (TASCENSO ODT / HND-020), a version of Gilenya®. (D. Del. docket; Handa Taiwan Stock Exchange announcement, 2022-10-25.)
• 2021-05-06 — Novartis filed this N.D. Cal. "safety suit" (No. 5:21-cv-03397-EJD-SVK; originally captioned 3:21-cv-03397), assigned to Judge Edward J. Davila with Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen. The complaint (Dkt. 7; Patent/Trademark Report Dkt. 3) asserts the same two patents under 35 U.S.C. § 271(e)(2) based on Handa's Paragraph IV-type certification to NDA No. 214962. The purpose, as the Delaware court later described it, was to protect the Hatch-Waxman automatic 30-month stay regardless of how any venue dispute in Delaware resolved. (Delaware Mem. Op., D.I. 47 at 3, 2022-03-01; DrugPatentWatch docket summary; RPX complaint capture.)
• Answer — Handa answered in the N.D. Cal. action, admitting the NDA submission and notice to Novartis but denying infringement, validity, and the alter-ego/concerted-action allegations, and asserting invalidity/non-infringement defenses. (Answer text, N.D. Cal. docket, via paragraphfour.com; exact docket date not confirmed in available sources.) Note: the Delaware action — not the N.D. Cal. action — is where counterclaims were later resolved with prejudice in the consent judgment; I found no direct evidence of counterclaims filed in the N.D. Cal. case.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

Delaware (the "main" case):

• 2021-06-21 — Handa moved to dismiss under Rules 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(3) and to transfer to the N.D. Cal. under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1404(a)/1406(a) (D.I. 9), arguing that only Handa Neuroscience submitted the NDA and that Delaware venue was improper; briefing was stipulated (D.I. 13, order 2021-06-30).
• 2022-01-24 — Telephonic argument on the motion (Tr. cited in D.I. 47).
• 2022-03-01 — Judge Leonard P. Stark denied the motion (Mem. Op. D.I. 47; Order D.I. 48): (i) denied with prejudice dismissal of the three non-submitter Handa entities and the transfer request; (ii) denied without prejudice the venue challenge as to Handa Neuroscience, LLC, subject to renewal after venue discovery; (iii) granted Novartis's motion to file a sur-reply. The court gave Novartis's Delaware forum choice "strong weight" and characterized the N.D. Cal. filing as a mere safety suit. (D.I. 47, 48, filed 2022-03-01.)

N.D. Cal. (this case):

• ~2021-06-22 — Novartis moved to stay in favor of the first-filed Delaware case (Dkt. 28); briefing was extended by stipulation (Dkts. 29–30, order 2021-06-30). (Patexia docket index.)
• 2021-12/2022-01 — The parties filed joint discovery submissions (Dkts. 59–61), and Judge van Keulen's 2022-02-02 order (Dkt. 69) noted a motion to stay this action pending before the District Judge, with the parties directed to submit updated positions within two business days of the Delaware court's ruling. (Dkt. 69, filed 2022-02-02.)
• 2022-03-03 — Joint notice of subsequent developments (Dkt. 77) advising that Judge Stark had denied Handa's motion to dismiss/transfer.
• 2022-03-11 — Judge Davila ordered a joint update (Dkt. 78).
• 2022-03-16 — Status report and stipulation filed (Dkts. 79–80); the court entered an order on motion to stay, stipulation, and motion to shorten time (Dkt. 81). Docket metadata (DrugPatentWatch) shows the N.D. Cal. case terminated 2022-03-18, consistent with the case being stayed/administratively closed once the Delaware venue battle was won, with the merits to proceed in Delaware. (The precise text of Dkt. 81 is not publicly confirmed; this characterization is based on docket chronology and the Delaware court's March 1, 2022 order directing the parties to proceed toward trial in Delaware.)

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• N.D. Cal.: The case did not reach claim construction; it was stayed/closed in March 2022 before any Markman proceedings.
• Delaware: The case advanced to claim construction — joint claim construction chart filed 2022-07-26, with Judge Noreika on 2022-07-27 ordering the hearing narrowed to no more than ten terms and deferring the remainder to dispositive-motion briefing (D. Del. order, 2022-07-27). No Markman opinion issued before settlement.

4. Discovery Milestones

• 2022-02-01 — Hearing before Magistrate Judge van Keulen on joint discovery submissions (Dkts. 59–61).
• 2022-02-02 — Orders entered: (1) an ESI disclosure order (Dkt. 70) requiring the parties to identify by 2022-02-11 their top ten ESI custodians and relevant electronic systems — strategically significant because the case targeted Handa's corporate-structure/alter-ego facts (Taiwan parent, San Jose U.S. entities, newly-formed Handa Neuroscience); (2) adoption of protective-order language resolving disputes (Dkt. 69).
• 2022-02-03 — Protective Order entered (Dkt. 73).
• Delaware (parallel): invalidity/infringement contentions exchanged through mid-2022; Novartis noticed the 30(b)(6) deposition of the Handa entities (2022-07-28) and the deposition of Dr. Fangyu Liu (notice 2022-07-01) — significant because Novartis's venue/alter-ego theory centered on Dr. Liu's control of the Handa entities and the assignment of the "Liu patents" (9,925,138; 10,555,902; 10,925,829) to Handa Neuroscience.

5. Trial, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

• No trial occurred. No verdict, no JMOL, no fee motions. The N.D. Cal. case was stayed before merits discovery completed; the Delaware case settled during pretrial (after claim-construction briefing, before any Markman ruling).

6. Settlement, Dismissal & Final Disposition

• 2022-10-24 — Novartis and Handa executed a confidential Settlement and License Agreement (U.S. time). The parties lodged a [Proposed] Consent Judgment and Order of Injunction in Delaware (dated 2022-10-24), under which Handa:
  • stipulated that all asserted claims of the '405 and '179 patents are valid and enforceable and infringed by the NDA 214962 product;
  • received a license from Novartis (mooting infringement as to the licensed use);
  • agreed to dismissal with prejudice of all claims and counterclaims;
  • accepted an injunction barring U.S. sales of the accused product until the contractual "Generic Entry Date";
  • agreed each side bears its own fees and waived appeal; the court retained jurisdiction over settlement disputes. (Proposed Consent Judgment, D. Del. 1:21-cv-00645, dated 2022-10-24.)
• 2022-10-25 — Handa (Taiwan GTSM-listed, ticker 6620) publicly announced the settlement: Novartis agreed to withdraw all related litigation; Handa will pay royalties on net U.S. sales of TASCENSO ODT under specified conditions; Handa would seek conversion of its FDA tentative approval (received 2021-10-18 for 0.5 mg) to final approval and launch. (Handa announcement via TPEx/MOPS, 2022-10-25; China Times, 2022-10-26.)
• 2022-10-26 — Delaware case terminated (DrugPatentWatch).
• N.D. Cal.: The case remained stayed/administratively closed (terminated 2022-03-18 per docket metadata); the last docket entry is a mail-return notice (Dkt. 82, 2023-07-20). The settlement's "withdraw all related litigation" clause covers this action. No separate N.D. Cal. judgment is reflected in the available docket; final disposition here was effectively dismissal pursuant to the global settlement, with the operative consent judgment entered in Delaware. (I could not confirm a separate stipulation of dismissal docketed in N.D. Cal.; that detail would require PACER verification.)

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings and Their Effect

• '405 patent — prior IPRs (not Handa-initiated): The '405 patent had previously been challenged in consolidated IPR2017-00854 (and related petitions) filed by generic companies; the PTAB issued a Final Written Decision in July 2018 upholding validity. That IPR lineage fed into the related Delaware HEC litigation.
• The decisive parallel development — Federal Circuit invalidation of the '405 patent: In Novartis v. HEC Pharm Co. (D. Del. 1:20-cv-00133; Fed. Cir. No. 21-1070), Judge Jordan upheld the '405 patent (Aug. 2020); a Federal Circuit panel affirmed on 2022-01-04; but on rehearing, a modified panel reversed on 2022-06-21, holding the '405 patent invalid. This materially weakened Novartis's position on the lead patent during the exact window the Handa parties were litigating claim construction and preparing for trial. On 2022-09-21 Novartis announced it would petition the Supreme Court for review. (Novartis press release, 2022-09-21; Fed. Cir. 2022-06-21 decision.)
• '179 patent: No Handa-initiated IPR on the '179 patent was found in my searches.
• Effect on this litigation: The settlement came roughly four months after the Federal Circuit's June 2022 invalidity ruling — the same week the parties were exchanging claim-construction positions in Delaware. The consent judgment's stipulation that the '405 and '179 patents are valid and enforceable (and infringed) is notable because it ran against the then-current Federal Circuit law on the '405 patent, reflecting a commercial resolution (royalties + delayed generic entry) rather than a merits-based one. I found no evidence that Handa itself filed IPR petitions on either patent; Handa's validity challenges were litigated in the district court proceedings.

---

Bottom Line

This N.D. Cal. action was a purely defensive, Hatch-Waxman 30-month-stay "safety suit" filed 2021-05-06 to preserve Novartis's rights while venue was litigated in Delaware. It was stayed and administratively closed by 2022-03-18 after Judge Stark denied Handa's motion to dismiss/transfer (2022-03-01). The merits then proceeded in Delaware until the parties' 2022-10-24 settlement, formalized by a consent judgment (stipulated validity/infringement of both patents, license, injunction until generic entry, royalty stream), with Handa announcing withdrawal of all related litigation on 2022-10-25. There was no trial, no Markman ruling, and no N.D. Cal. merits ruling — the case's significance lies in its interplay with the Delaware forum fight and the contemporaneous Federal Circuit invalidation of the '405 patent in the related HEC case.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation

Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation v. Handa Neuroscience, LLC et al., No. 3:21-cv-03397 / 5:21-cv-03397-EJD (SVK) (N.D. Cal., filed May 6, 2021)

Based on the complaint signature block (Dkt. 7), the pro hac vice orders (Dkts. 13–14), docket filings, and third-party litigation databases (DrugPatentWatch, Unicourt, CourtListener), the following attorneys appeared for Novartis in the Northern District of California action:

---

Verified counsel of record

1. Jane M. Love, Ph.D. — Lead Counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm/Office: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP — New York, NY
• Verified on docket: Signed the Complaint as first-named counsel (Dkt. 7, filed 5/6/2021); pro hac vice granted by Magistrate Judge Laurel Beeler on 5/13/2021 (Dkt. 13).
• Note: Gibson Dunn partner and a leading Hatch-Waxman/ANDA litigator; has led Novartis's GILENYA® (fingolimod) patent enforcement efforts, including the parallel Delaware action against Handa (D. Del. No. 1:21-cv-00645-LPS), where she was also admitted pro hac vice.

2. Robert W. Trenchard — Counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm/Office: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP — New York, NY
• Verified on docket: Signed the Complaint (Dkt. 7); pro hac vice granted 5/13/2021 (Dkt. 14).
• Note: Gibson Dunn IP litigation partner with substantial Hatch-Waxman/ANDA experience; represented Novartis in the parallel Delaware Handa litigation and other GILENYA-related ANDA suits.

3. Y. Ernest "Yu-Chieh" Hsin — Local Counsel (California-admitted)

• Firm/Office: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP — California office (CA Bar No. 201668; NY Bar No. 3016995)
• Verified on docket: Signed the Complaint as the California-admitted attorney (Dkt. 7); filed the stipulations governing service (Dkt. 19) and the briefing schedule extension (Dkt. 26), appearing on the docket as "Hsin, Yu-Chieh."
• Note: Gibson Dunn IP associate/partner serving as N.D. Cal. local counsel for Novartis; handles patent litigation and Hatch-Waxman matters for the firm's pharmaceutical clients.

4. Christine L. Ranney — Counsel

• Firm/Office: Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP (Washington, D.C.-area office)
• Verified via: DrugPatentWatch lists Christine Louise Ranney (Gibson Dunn) as counsel for Novartis in this specific N.D. Cal. case (5:21-cv-03397). She was also admitted pro hac vice in the parallel Delaware Handa action (D.I. 8 in 1:21-cv-00645).
• Note: Gibson Dunn IP partner with deep Hatch-Waxman/ANDA and biologics litigation experience (formerly at Kirkland & Ellis); regularly represents Novartis in patent litigation. Caveat: I could not independently pull a separate N.D. Cal. pro hac vice order for her from the public docket in the available sources, though her appearance is corroborated by DrugPatentWatch.

---

Counsel reported in related/cross-referenced dockets (not confirmed as appearing in the N.D. Cal. action)

Unicourt's consolidated attorney list for the Novartis–Handa litigation also shows Andrew P. Blythe, Aileen C. Huang, Anne Y. Brody, Emil N. Nachman, Alexandra M. Joyce, and Daniel M. Silver (McCarter & English, Wilmington) as plaintiff-side attorneys — but the available docket entries tie those pro hac vice admissions to the Delaware cases (1:21-cv-00645 and 1:22-cv-00352), not to the N.D. Cal. safety suit. I did not find docket evidence that these attorneys separately appeared in 5:21-cv-03397, so I would not list them as N.D. Cal. counsel of record without PACER confirmation.

---

Notes and caveats

• In-house counsel: No Novartis in-house attorneys appear as counsel of record on the public N.D. Cal. docket. (Novartis's in-house litigation team oversaw the GILENYA/Handa campaign, but the filed appearances are all Gibson Dunn.)
• Defense counsel (for context only): Donald J. Mizerk of Handa's counsel appeared for defendants (Dkt. 21, 6/14/2021); the Delaware-side defense attorney was John C. Phillips Jr. of Phillips Goldman McLaughlin & Hall (Wilmington).
• Case outcome: The N.D. Cal. safety suit was stayed/held pending the Delaware venue ruling (Judge Stark denied transfer on 3/1/2022; see D. Del. D.I. 47) and was dismissed after the parties' October 2022 settlement — consistent with the case summary provided.
• Verification limits: My search tool access ended before I could enumerate every N.D. Cal. docket entry (92 entries) or pull PACER directly. The three attorney names in the complaint signature block and the two pro hac vice orders are directly verified from the public docket; Christine Ranney's appearance is corroborated by DrugPatentWatch. For a complete, authoritative list (including any later-added pro hac vice attorneys), PACER's attorney list for 5:21-cv-03397 would be definitive.

Based on the available docket and litigation-database sources (CourtListener/RECAP, Unicourt, RPX, and the Delaware parallel action docket), here is what can be established about defendants' counsel of record in Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Handa Neuroscience, LLC et al., No. 5:21-cv-03397-EJD (SVK) (N.D. Cal.) — and, importantly, what cannot yet be confirmed.

Key context

This N.D. Cal. action was Novartis's "safety suit," filed May 6, 2021, two days after the parallel Delaware Hatch-Waxman case, Novartis Pharms. Corp. v. Handa Neuroscience, LLC, No. 1:21-cv-00645-LPS (D. Del.). The two cases were coordinated; the N.D. Cal. action was stayed pending the Delaware venue/transfer fight and later dismissed. Because the N.D. Cal. docket largely tracked the Delaware filings, the defendant-side appearances are best documented in the Delaware docket, which also names the same four Handa entities.

A caution on the sources: DrugPatentWatch and the CourtListener RECAP snippets list Christine Louise Ranney, Jane M. Love, Robert W. Trenchard, Y. Ernest Hsin, etc. (Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher LLP) as attorneys on this litigation — those are Novartis's counsel, not the defendants'. They should not be confused with the Handa defense team.

Defendant-side attorneys identified

1. John C. Phillips, Jr. — out-of-district/Delaware counsel (lead on the docket)

• Role: Defense counsel for all four Handa entities (Handa Neuroscience, LLC; Handa Pharma, Inc.; Handa Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Handa Pharmaceuticals, LLC). Unicourt's attorney listing for this litigation identifies him as the Defendant Attorney.
• Firm/location: Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, P.A., Wilmington, Delaware.
• Supporting record: In the parallel Delaware case he filed the Handa defendants' Answer and Affirmative Defenses ("ANSWER to 1 Complaint, Affirmative Defenses by Handa Neuroscience, LLC, Handa Pharma, Inc., Handa Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Handa Pharmaceuticals, LLC. (Phillips, John)"), the Rule 7.1 disclosure, and the motion to dismiss/transfer (D.I. 9–13). His name also appears on the N.D. Cal. defendant filings, which mirror the Delaware pleadings.
• Experience note: Phillips is a veteran Delaware litigation practitioner who regularly serves as Delaware counsel for out-of-state defendants in patent and Hatch-Waxman cases (including ANDA/Paragraph IV litigation), frequently paired with national lead counsel.

2. Don J. Mizerk — lead/outside counsel (firm not confirmed)

• Role: Lead/outside counsel for the Handa defendants.
• Supporting record: (a) A motion for pro hac vice appearance of Matthew M. Kamps and Don J. Mizerk was filed on behalf of Handa in the Delaware action on March 14, 2022 (entered by "Bilson, David"); (b) the Handa Answer filed in this N.D. Cal. case is hosted by paragraphfour.com under a PDF titled candc21cv3397A.pdf, whose page title begins with "Don J" — consistent with Mizerk signing the N.D. Cal. answer.
• Firm/location: Not confirmed from the retrieved sources. I cannot state his firm or office without a verified signature block or firm bio, and I will not guess.

3. Matthew M. Kamps — lead/outside counsel (firm not confirmed)

• Role: Lead/outside counsel for the Handa defendants (admitted pro hac vice in Delaware alongside Mizerk).
• Supporting record: "MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Matthew M. Kamps and Don J. Mizerk … (Bilson, David) (Entered: 03/14/2022)" in the Delaware case.
• Firm/location: Not confirmed from retrieved sources.

4. David A. Bilson — defense counsel (firm not confirmed)

• Role: Defense counsel for the Handa entities; appears as the filer/entering attorney on multiple Handa filings in the Delaware case (e.g., D.I. 12 redacted opening brief in support of the motion to dismiss/transfer; the March 14, 2022 PHV motion for Kamps and Mizerk).
• Firm/location: Not confirmed. Bilson may practice with the Delaware local firm or with Handa's national counsel; the snippets do not identify his firm, and I will not speculate.

Explicit gaps (not well sourced)

• N.D. Cal. local counsel: I did not find a confirmed, separately designated California local counsel for the Handa defendants in the retrieved docket text. If Handa's counsel were not admitted in N.D. Cal., the answer and other filings should show California local counsel in the signature block; the retrieved snippets do not disclose one. This remains unverified — the full signature block of the N.D. Cal. Answer (Dkt. entry on the 5:21-cv-03397 docket) and any N.D. Cal. pro hac vice orders for defense counsel should be pulled from PACER/RECAP to confirm.
• Firm affiliations and roles for Mizerk, Kamps, and Bilson are unconfirmed.
• In-house counsel: No Handa in-house attorney of record was identified; the corporate representative referenced in the complaint is Dr. Fangyu Liu (CEO/agent for service of process), but he is not listed as counsel of record.

Bottom line

The only defendant-side attorney affirmatively identified as counsel of record by a litigation database for this case is John C. Phillips, Jr. (Phillips, Goldman, McLaughlin & Hall, Wilmington, DE). The N.D. Cal. answer and the parallel Delaware docket further show Don J. Mizerk, Matthew M. Kamps, and David A. Bilson acting for the Handa defendants, but their firm affiliations and the identity of any California local counsel could not be confirmed from the available sources and should be verified against the PACER docket (case 5:21-cv-03397-EJD-SVK) and the fully OCR'd Answer pleading before reliance.