Andrew D. Prins

Partner

Washington, D.C.
andrew.prins@lw.com
+1.202.637.3317

PRACTICES

  • Communications
  • Complex Commercial Litigation
  • Connectivity, Privacy & Information
  • Healthcare Regulatory
  • Litigation & Trial
  • Supreme Court & Appellate

BAR QUALIFICATIONS

  • District of Columbia
  • Maryland

EDUCATION

  • BS, Florida Atlantic University,
    magna cum laude
  • JD, Duke University School of Law,
    with Honors

PROFILE

Andrew Prins represents clients in complex high-stakes litigation matters, including disputes with the government and consumer class actions.

Andrew is a versatile litigator who represents clients before trial courts, appellate courts, administrative agencies, and arbitrators. He works with clients in a number of highly regulated industries, especially:

  • Pharmaceuticals
  • Healthcare
  • Biotechnology
  • Telecommunications
  • Technology

His government-facing matters often involve challenges to the legality of government regulatory actions that raise precedent-setting questions of constitutional law, administrative law, federal preemption, jurisdiction, and statutory interpretation. In addition to litigating these issues on both the plaintiff and defense side in court, he provides pre-dispute counseling to clients in regulatory matters that may result in litigation.

Within his complex litigation practice, Andrew regularly defends clients in consumer class actions, and a contested class has never been certified in one of his cases. He also frequently represents clients in arbitration proceedings in matters that typically involve a complex regulatory overlay.

He possesses a sophisticated understanding of the statutory and regulatory regimes under which his clients operate, including the Administrative Procedure Act (APA); Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA); Controlled Substances Act (CSA); Plant Protection Act (PPA); Endangered Species Act (ESA); National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA); Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA); and various consumer protection statutes.

A recognized leader at the firm, Andrew serves on the Technology Committee and the Finance Committee.

Before joining Latham, Andrew served as a judicial law clerk to Judge J.L. Edmondson of the US Court of Appeals for the 11th Circuit. 

For 10 years prior to practicing law, he served in various senior-level engineering and management roles at a large multinational internet and telecommunications company, where he was responsible for network architecture and data security. 

EXPERIENCE

Andrew's experience includes:

Government-Facing Litigation

  • SCAN Health Plan v. HHS, 2024 WL 2815789 (D.D.C. 2024): Invalidating CMS’s erroneous calculation of client’s Medicare Advantage Star Rating as inconsistent with the governing regulations
  • United Therapeutics Corp. v. HRSA, 2021 WL 5161783 (D.C. Cir. 2024): Affirming lower court victory invalidating violation determination issued by HHS/HRSA concerning the federal 340B drug pricing program 
  • Endo Par Innovation Co., LLC v. FDA, 1:23-cv-00999 (D.D.C. 2024): Obtaining preliminary injunction staying FDA approval of client’s competitor’s drug product, due to likely arbitrary policy change by the agency
  • Nat’l Ass’n of Wheat Growers v. Bonta, 85 F.4th 1263 (9th Cir. 2023): Affirming lower court victory enjoining California’s Proposition 65 on First Amendment grounds
  • Fontem USA LLC v. FDA, No. 22-1076 (D.C. Cir. 2023): Vacating a marketing denial order that the FDA issued concerning the client’s e-cigarette applications as unlawful under the Tobacco Control Act and arbitrary and capricious
  • United Therapeutics Corp. v. HRSA, 2021 WL 5161783 (D.D.C. 2021): Invalidating violation determination issued by HHS/HRSA concerning the federal 340B drug pricing program because the determination rested on an invalid statutory interpretation
  • Catalyst Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. FDA, 14 F.4th 1299 (11th Cir. 2021): Reversing district court and directing that judgment be entered in client’s favor in case challenging FDA’s approval of competitor’s drug due to client’s orphan drug exclusivity 
  • Eagle Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. FDA, 952 F.3d 323 (D.C. Cir. 2020): Affirming lower court victory that concluded FDA’s interpretation of the Orphan Drug Act’s exclusivity provision was inconsistent with the statute
  • Genus Lifesciences Inc. v. FDA, 486 F. Supp. 3d 450 (D.D.C. 2020): Granting partial summary judgment to client and concluding that FDA erred during its approval of competitor’s drug product
  • Institute for Justice v. IRS, 941 F.3d 567 (D.C. Cir. 2019): Obtaining rare reversal of a grant of summary judgment to the government under the Freedom of Information Act
  • Charter Communications Inc. v. US, 722 Fed. Appx. 604 (9th Cir. 2019): Invalidating part of the TCPA as a content-based regulation of speech inconsistent with the First Amendment
  • Nat’l Family Farm Coalition v. EPA, 747 F. App’x 646 (9th Cir. 2019): Dismissing challenge to client’s pesticide approval on jurisdictional grounds
  • Athenex Inc. v. FDA, 397 F. Supp. 3d 56 (D.D.C. 2019): Defeating challenge by client’s competitor to FDA’s regulatory determination in client’s favor regarding bulk drug compounding
  • Nat’l Ass’n of Wheat Growers v. Zeise, 468 F. Supp. 3d 1247 (E.D. Cal. 2018): Granting permanent injunction against enforcement of California’s Proposition 65 warning requirement on First Amendment grounds
  • Eagle Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. FDA, 2018 WL 3838265 (D.D.C. 2018): Ordering FDA to recognize orphan drug exclusivity for client’s drug and setting aside FDA’s prior refusal to do so as inconsistent with the statute
  • Par Sterile Products LLC v. FDA, 1:17-cv-02221 (D.D.C. 2017): Challenging FDA “guidance” document purporting to exercise “enforcement discretion” over certain drug compounding activities
  • Atay v. County of Maui, 842 F.3d 688 (9th Cir. 2016): Affirming lower court victory invalidating county ban on biotechnology crops as preempted by federal and state law
  • Residents for The Beverly Hills Garden and Open Space Initiative v. City of Beverly Hills, 2:16-cv-05532 (C.D. Cal. 2016): Obtaining on First Amendment grounds a preliminary injunction against a city ordinance placing restrictions and burdens on political speech
  • Robert Ito Farm Inc. v. County of Maui, 111 F. Supp. 3d 1088 (D. Haw. 2015): Invalidating county ban on biotechnology crops as preempted by federal and state law
  • New York Statewide Coal. of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. New York City Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 23 N.Y.3d 681 (2014): Affirming lower court victory invalidating New York City’s “soda ban”
  • Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd. v. FDA, No. 1:14-cv-00786 (D.D.C. 2014): Defeating competitor’s challenge to client’s pending FDA generic drug application
  • Ctr. for Food Safety v. USDA, 718 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2013): Affirming lower court victory defeating challenge to biotechnology crop approval
  • New York Statewide Coal. of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. New York City Dep’t of Health & Mental Hygiene, 2013 WL 1343607 (N.Y. Sup. Ct. 2013): Invalidating New York City’s “soda ban” on constitutional grounds
  • Walgreen Co. v. DEA, No. 12-1397 (D.C. Cir. filed Oct. 10, 2012): Challenging DEA enforcement action and regulatory interpretation of the Controlled Substances Act
  • Community Coalition Against Beverage Taxes v. City of Richmond, 3:12-cv-04545 (N.D. Cal. 2012): Obtaining on First Amendment grounds a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction against city ordinance placing restrictions and burdens on political speech
  • Ctr. for Food Safety v. USDA, 844 F. Supp. 2d 1006 (N.D. Cal. 2012): Defeating challenge to client’s biotechnology crop approval

Other Complex Litigation

  • Hart v. Charter Communications Inc., 2023 WL 3914285 (C.D. Cal. 2023): Dismissing claims of lead putative class representative asserting nationwide false advertising claims based on allegedly deficient internet speeds
  • Hale v. Teladoc Health Inc., 2021 WL 1163925 (S.D.N.Y 2021): Dismissing with prejudice TCPA class action for failure to state a claim for vicarious liability 
  • Suttles v. Facebook Inc., 461 F. Supp. 3d 479 (W.D. Tex. 2020): Dismissing with prejudice TCPA case for failure to adequately pled existence of a “telephone solicitation” and use of an “ATDS”
  • Hart v. Charter Communications Inc., 814 Fed. Appx. 211 (9th Cir. 2020): Affirming lower court victory compelling arbitration based on contract formed through inquiry notice
  • Hunter v. Time Warner Cable Inc., 2019 WL 3812063 (S.D.N.Y. 2019): Defeating class certification in case alleging about 150 million phone calls placed in violation of the TCPA
  • Olsen v. Charter Communications Inc., 2019 WL 3779190 (S.D.N.Y. 2019): Compelling plaintiffs in putative class action into arbitration concerning claims asserting misrepresentation of internet broadband speeds
  • Hart v. Charter Communications Inc., 2017 WL 6942425 (C.D. Cal. 2017): Compelling plaintiffs into arbitration concerning claims asserting misrepresentation of Internet broadband speeds
  • Robert Ito Farm Inc. v. County of Maui, 842 F.3d 681 (9th Cir. 2016): Defeating challenge by proposed intervener to denial of intervention in the lower court
  • Miller v. Time Warner Cable Inc., 2016 WL 7471302 (C.D. Cal. 2016): Dismissing injunctive TCPA claim for lack of Article III standing and compelling remaining damages claim to arbitration
  • In re: Time Warner Cable Inc., Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) Litigation, 247 F. Supp. 3d 1388 (J.P.M.L. 2016): Denying centralization of TCPA class actions