John R. Hutchins

John R. Hutchins

Mr. Hutchins handles a variety of patent-related matters, including litigation in federal district court and appeals before the Federal Circuit, client counseling, license drafting and negotiations, patent prosecution and reexamination, and European opposition proceedings. His practice focuses on patent litigation on the trial and appellate level, and he has represented clients in diverse fields, such as consumer electronics, automotive components, medical devices, paper making processes and chemicals, inks, vaccines, pharmaceuticals, e-commerce, and toys and children's products.

Before joining Kenyon & Kenyon, Mr. Hutchins served as a law clerk to the Honorable Paul V. Gadola, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of Michigan. During this clerkship, Mr. Hutchins gained extensive familiarity with federal civil and criminal trial practice.

Mr. Hutchins'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.

Mr. Hutchins 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.

While attending Harvard Law School, Mr. Hutchins served as president of the Harvard Mediation Program, mediated disputes before state courts in Massachusetts, and taught mediation technique at the law school. Mr. Hutchins was also a special assistant district attorney at the Middlesex County District Attorney's Office, where he prosecuted criminal cases.

Representative cases:

• Automotive Technologies International, Inc. v. Delphi Corp., et al., in which the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment of invalidity of four separate patents in favor of client Delphi (2011WL836730 (E.D. Mich. March 9, 2011).
• Intellectual Science and Technology, Inc. v. Sony Electronics Inc., in which the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of client Sony Electronics Inc. (91 U.S.P.Q.2d 1123 (Nov. 24, 2008)), a ruling that was affirmed on an appeal argued by Mr. Hutchins. 589 F.3d 1179 (Fed. Cir. 2009).
• Intervet, Inc. v. Merial Limited et al., in which the United States District Court for the District of Columbia granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of client Intervet. (643 F. Supp. 2d 97 (D.C.D.C. 2009)).
• Bracco Diagnostics, Inc. v. Amersham Health, Inc., in which the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey rejected plaintiff Bracco’s $4 billion false advertising damages claim against client GE Healthcare and ruled that plaintiff Bracco had itself engaged in false advertising. (627 F. Supp. 2d 384 (D.N.J. 2009)).
• Ottis v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., in which the United States District Court for the District of Nebraska dismissed copyright infringement claims against client Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson and his charitable foundation (627 F. Supp. 2d 1040 (D. Neb. 2008)).
• LeapFrog Enterprises, Inc. v. Fisher-Price, Inc. et al., in which the United States District Court for the District of Delaware ruled after a trial that clients Fisher-Price and Mattel did not infringe LeapFrog’s patent, and that the patent was invalid (2006 WL 891001 (D. Del. March 30, 2006)), a ruling that was affirmed on appeal. (485 F.3d 1157 (Fed. Cir. 2007)).