Andrew (Andy) Solomon utilizes his 35+ years of diversified experiences to provide clients in the life sciences and chemical industries the opportunity to achieve an appropriate return on their investment. Andy has spent the majority of his career as an in-house practitioner, handling both intellectual property and commercial matters and utilizes his in-house experience to deliver advice in a straightforward, pragmatic, business-sensitive way. He retired from the Perrigo Company, a leading global generic, store brand and value brand pharmaceutical company, in 2017 and is a registered patent attorney with a chemical background. 

Andy’s practice focuses on:  

  • Comprehensive intellectual property, regulatory, and commercial strategies to enable the timely launch of pharmaceutical products
  • Intellectual property litigation and inter partes proceedings 
  • Intellectual property and regulatory counseling and portfolio development 
  • Freedom to operate patent opinions
  • Complex licensing agreements
  • Commercial agreements 
  • Transactional due diligence and agreements
  • Litigation settlement agreements

Specific areas of focus include: 

  • Hatch Waxman intellectual property and regulatory issues 
  • Regulatory approval of pharmaceuticals 
  • Review of product labeling for regulatory compliance 
  • Acquisitions and divestitures of life science and chemical companies 
  • Product development, licensing, distribution and supply agreements 
  • Generic, store brand and value brand marketing 
  • Formal client education

Education

  • University of Missouri-Columbia School of Law (J.D., 1985)
    • University of Missouri-Columbia (B.S., 1982)
      • Chemical Engineering

    Bar Admission

    • Missouri, 2018
    • Illinois, 1990
    • Pennsylvania, 1985

    Recognition

    • Selected for inclusion in Best Lawyers in America® for Litigation - Intellectual Property, 2025-2026
    Publications
    All Publications
    Supreme Court Hands Generics a Unanimous Win on Skinny Labels in Hikma v. Amarin
    A unanimous Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and held that Amarin did not plausibly allege that Hikma’s skinny label and marketing actively induced infringement of Vascepa’s cardiovascular-use patents — a decisive win for the generic industry that affirms skinny labeling as a shield against method-of-use liability. Key Takeaways A decisive win for the generic industry. On June 4, 2026, a unanimous Court — in an opinion by Justice Jackson — reversed the Federal Circuit and held that Amarin failed to state a claim for active inducement under 35 U.S.C. §271(b). The decision affirms skinny labeling and will generally shield generic companies that properly carve out a patented indication from induced-infringement liability. The Court ruled unanimously and just five weeks after argument — a
    Read More
    How Skinny is Skinny Enough? Takeaways from the SCOTUS Oral Argument in the Amarin/Hikma Case
    Key Takeaways The U.S. Supreme Court did not seem inclined to create a new rule for induced infringement for pharmaceuticals. Although it’s always difficult to predict the outcome based on oral argument, the questions from the Justices (and the responses from the parties) suggested that a new standard for induced infringement is unlikely to be adopted. SCOTUS appears interested in ruling on the merits. The questioning relating to inducement standards suggests that SCOTUS may be interested in weighing in on the patent merits surrounding skinny labeling. That being said, given that the case was decided on a motion to dismiss, at least one or two questions suggested that it’s possible that SCOTUS will punt on the issue and instead focus on the plausibility standard
    Read More