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 LLP, Mr. Hutchins served as a law clerk to the Honorable Paul V. Gadola, U.S. 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 matters
  • 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)).
bar and court admissions
  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
  • New York
  • District of Columbia
  • Registered Patent Attorney: U.S. Patent and Trademark Office