John R. Hutchins
firstname.lastname@example.org Main: 202.824.3000 Fax: 202.824.3001
John is a first-chair patent litigation attorney, who handles litigation in federal district court and the International Trade Commission, appeals before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, client counseling, license drafting and negotiations, and patent post-grant proceedings. He has represented clients in cases involving consumer electronics, automotive components, medical devices, paper making processes and chemicals, inks, vaccines, pharmaceuticals, e-commerce, and toys and children's products.
John was previously a partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Kenyon & Kenyon LLP, which eventually became Hunton Andrews Kurth LLP. He successfully represented his clients in the following representative matters:
- Sony in litigation that resulted in the court entering a stipulation of non-infringement as a matter of law following a transfer from the Eastern District of Texas and a favorable claim construction ruling. Optimum Power Solutions v. Sony Electronics (N.D. Cal.).
- Delphi in litigation resulting in granted summary judgment of invalidity of four separate patents in favor of client. Automotive Technologies International v. Delphi, et al. (E.D. Mich.).
- Sony in patent litigation resulting in granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of client. The ruling, argued by Mr. Hutchins, was affirmed on an appeal. Intellectual Science and Technology v. Sony Electronics (E.D. Mich., Fed. Cir.).
- Intervet in patent litigation resulting in granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of client. Intervet v. Merial, et al. (D.C.D.C.).
- GE Healthcare in a false advertising case concerning x-ray contrast agents. District court found in favor of GE Healthcare after trial on its false advertising counterclaim. Bracco Diagnostics v. Amersham Health (D.N.J.).
- Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and his charitable foundation in a copyright litigation resulting in dismissed copyright infringement claims against client. Ottis v. Fisher-Price et al. (D. Neb.).
- Fisher-Price and Mattel in a patent litigation trial that resulted in the court finding that the firm's clients did not infringe LeapFrog’s patent, and that the patent was invalid. The ruling was affirmed on appeal. LeapFrog Enterprises v. Fisher-Price, et al. (D. Del., Fed. Cir.).
John has taught patent law at the Catholic University of America’s Columbus School of Law and intellectual property legal drafting at George Washington University Law School. He is also a co-author of the leading treatise on patent litigation at the ITC: Unfair Competition and the ITC (2016-2017 ed.). He is recognized in Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers and the Intellectual Asset Management Patent 1000 in 2022.Early in his career, John served as a law clerk to the Honorable Paul V. Gadola, U.S. District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. He earned his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School in 1995, and his B.S.E., summa cum laude, in electrical engineering from the University of Michigan in 1992.
John's technical background relates to solid-state electronic device fabrication. He also gained experience in various packaging technologies for electronic circuitry while working as an Eastman Kodak Scholar for Eastman Kodak Company.While attending Harvard Law School, John served as president of the Harvard Mediation Program, mediated disputes before state courts in Massachusetts, and taught mediation technique at the law school. John was also a special assistant district attorney at the Middlesex County District Attorney’s Office, where he prosecuted criminal cases.
University of Michigan
1992, B.S., Electrical Engineering
Harvard Law School
- 1996, New York
- 1997, District of Columbia
- District of Columbia Court of Appeals
- Superior Court of the District of Columbia
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- U.S. Supreme Court