Arent Fox Schiff

I'll research the firm's current profile, IP litigation practice, and the tracked case.

ArentFox Schiff LLP — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. ArentFox Schiff LLP (styled "ArentFox Schiff") is a full-service Am Law 100 firm headquartered in Washington, D.C., formed on March 1, 2022 through the merger of Arent Fox (D.C.) and Schiff Hardin (Chicago). Public sources put the combined firm at roughly 575–600-plus lawyers and policy professionals (ILRG reports 575 attorneys for 2025, ranking it #93 by U.S. headcount; the merger announcement cited more than 600 lawyers and policy professionals and combined revenue of roughly $475–509M, which placed the new firm inside the Am Law 100). Offices span Washington, D.C., Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, Boston, San Francisco, Ann Arbor, and Lake Forest, plus a notable lobbying/government-relations arm. This is a diversified BigLaw platform, not an IP boutique; IP is one of several core practices rather than the firm's sole identity.

IP litigation specialty. Chambers USA 2025 ranks the firm Band 3 nationally for Intellectual Property, describing it as "well regarded for its handling of patent infringement disputes, including the representation of generic pharmaceutical manufacturers in ANDA litigation," with additional strength in prosecution and licensing. Legal 500's patent litigation coverage characterizes the team as "particularly strong in patent defense matters" and especially active for pharmaceutical and life sciences clients. Technology areas reflected in the firm's own materials include Hatch-Waxman/ANDA and biosimilars, chemical and life sciences, electrical/computer-software and mechanical arts, medical devices, and design patents; the practice also has a meaningful Section 337/ITC component. The firm states it has more than 70 full-time patent professionals handling patent procurement and enforcement.

Side preference. The structured appearance data here reflects exactly one tracked matter, so it cannot support a statistical side-preference claim: 0 plaintiff-side appearances and 1 defendant-side appearance, in a lead-counsel role. That single matter — Happy Products, Inc. v. Ontel Products Corporation (D.N.J.) — involved defending an operating company and several major retailers against patent and trade-dress claims. The broader public record is consistent with a defense-weighted patent litigation practice (Legal 500: "particularly strong in patent defense matters"; a client roster dominated by generic and specialty pharmaceutical manufacturers such as Alkem, Aurobindo, Fresenius Kabi, Gland, Intas, Hikma and Nexus). The firm does, however, also appear as complainant/plaintiff in some IP matters, including ITC actions, so it is best described as working both sides with a defense lean.

Notable tracked case and public outcomes. Happy Products, Inc. v. Ontel Products Corp., No. 2:24-cv-09819 (D.N.J.) is the firm's tracked appearance. The firm's team, led by Ariel S. Peikes with Janine Carlan, Saukshmya Trichi, Michelle Marsh, and Julie Vernon of counsel, represents Ontel Products and retailer defendants (Boscov's, BJ's Wholesale Club, Unbeatablesale.com). The court (Judge Evelyn Padin) denied Ontel's motion to dismiss on November 13, 2025, rejecting the argument that the asserted trade dress was functional at the pleading stage; a joint claim construction and prehearing statement was filed in September 2025. The parties are also in parallel PTAB proceedings (IPR2025-01536, Ontel Products Corp. v. Happy Products, Inc.). Other publicly reported results the firm cites include an ITC win for Tieks in a design-patent investigation, ITC representation of Ōura Health against Chinese and Indian competitors, an Aurobindo ANDA matter concerning AbbVie's RINVOQ (upadacitinib), and Fresenius Kabi litigation over a levothyroxine formulation — these are firm/rankings-reported, not independently verified verdicts.

PTAB / IPR practice. Post-grant work is an advertised component of the patent group (the Boston IP team's arrival in 2024 was expressly tied to PTAB and post-grant proceedings, and partners such as Richard J. Berman have led IPRs in software, biotech, and medical-device fields). The Ontel v. Happy Products IPR is a concrete recent example tied to the tracked district court case. I could not locate a reliable public statistic on the firm's annual IPR/PGR filing volume, so no scale figure should be asserted here.

Key partners / practice leaders. Reliably sourced from Chambers, Legal 500, and the firm's site: Janine A. Carlan (Washington, D.C.; IP Litigation practice group co-leader; noted for ITC proceedings); Sailesh K. Patel (Chicago; IP Litigation co-leader; life sciences and pharmaceutical/chemical patent litigation); Richard J. Berman (registered patent attorney; leads the firm's Hatch-Waxman litigation team and co-chairs the Life Sciences Industry Group); and Imron Aly (Chambers-recognized for Hatch-Waxman and biosimilars). Also frequently listed: Kevin Nelson (Hatch-Waxman), Ehsun Forghany (San Francisco; design patents and ITC), and Craig Gelfound (head of the L.A. IP group). Note that Ariel Peikes, the tracked lead attorney, is listed by the firm as a Senior Attorney (not partner) whose practice centers on trademark, trade dress, copyright, and design patent matters.

Caveats: the plaintiff/defendant and role counts above derive from a single tracked matter and are not statistically meaningful. Firm size figures vary by source (575 vs. 600+) and by whether policy professionals are included. The ITC and ANDA results listed in the "notable outcomes" paragraph come from firm press materials and directory write-ups rather than independent court-verdict reporting, and should be treated accordingly.