John Hutchins 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.
Lawdragon Honors
| Honor | Year | Practice |
|---|---|---|
| The 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global IP Lawyers | 2026 | Patent Litigation |
Hutchins 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 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.).