Andrew McElligott
Overview
Drew McElligott's practice focuses on patent and trademark litigation, representing leading companies in the pharmaceutical and medical device sectors, as well as consumer products manufacturers.
Career & Education
- Loyola University Cardiovascular Institute
Research Assistant I and Lead Technician, February 2008–August 2011
- Loyola University Cardiovascular Institute
- University of Notre Dame, B.S., 2007
- University of Illinois Chicago School of Law, J.D., 2014
- Illinois
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
Professional Activities and Memberships
- The Copyright Society of the USA
- Phi Alpha Delta Legal Fraternity
- The Order of John Marshall
- Board Member, Trial Advocacy and Dispute Resolution Honors Council
Andrew's Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.27.25
Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split on Scope of IPR Estoppel
As part of the 2012 America Invents Act, statutory estoppel was included to balance the interests of patent owners and patent challengers following an inter partes review (“IPR”). Estoppel prevents an IPR petitioner from later asserting in court that a claim “is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). As applied, estoppel prevents petitioners from later relying in district court or in ITC proceedings on most patents or printed publications – the limited bases upon which petitioner can rely in an IPR. But a question remained, and contradictory district court decisions arose, as to whether petitioners would be estopped from relying on a prior art commercial product (known as “device art,” which could not itself have been raised in the IPR) even if a printed publication describing the product (i.e. a patent or technical manual) was available and presumably could have been raised.
Firm News | 8 min read | 08.15.24
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.04.24
Federal Circuit Abandons Decades-Old Obviousness Test For Design Patents
Press Coverage | 12.31.23
What Lies Ahead: Here’s What IP Practitioners Will Be Watching in 2024
Recognition
- The Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch–Intellectual Property Law, 2021
- Hon. Howard T. Markey Distinguished Scholar, 2011–2014
- The John Marshall Review of Intellectual Property Law: Lead Articles Editor
Andrew's Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.27.25
Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split on Scope of IPR Estoppel
As part of the 2012 America Invents Act, statutory estoppel was included to balance the interests of patent owners and patent challengers following an inter partes review (“IPR”). Estoppel prevents an IPR petitioner from later asserting in court that a claim “is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). As applied, estoppel prevents petitioners from later relying in district court or in ITC proceedings on most patents or printed publications – the limited bases upon which petitioner can rely in an IPR. But a question remained, and contradictory district court decisions arose, as to whether petitioners would be estopped from relying on a prior art commercial product (known as “device art,” which could not itself have been raised in the IPR) even if a printed publication describing the product (i.e. a patent or technical manual) was available and presumably could have been raised.
Firm News | 8 min read | 08.15.24
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.04.24
Federal Circuit Abandons Decades-Old Obviousness Test For Design Patents
Press Coverage | 12.31.23
What Lies Ahead: Here’s What IP Practitioners Will Be Watching in 2024
Insights
SCOTUS' 131-year itch: Georgia v Public.Resource.Org, Inc
|02.18.20
Intellectual Property Magazine
A Higher Bar for Establishing a Licensing-Based Domestic Industry, 37 ITC TRIAL LAW. ASS'N, 337 REP.: The Paul J. Luckern Summer Associate Edition 59 (2013).
|01.01.13
Cardiac myosin binding protein-C is a potential diagnostic biomarker for myocardial infarction, co-author, 52 J. OF MOLECULAR AND CELLULAR CARDIOLOGY 154 (2012).
|01.01.12
Novel approach to admittance to volume conversion for ventricular volume measurement, co-author, CONF PROC IEEE ENG MED BIOL SOC. (2011); 2011:2514-7.
|01.01.11
Connective Tissue Growth Factor Gene Expression in the Failing Human Heart, co-author, 29 THE J. OF HEART AND LUNG TRANSPLANTATION 61 (Supp. 2010).
|01.01.10
Deiodinase Expression in a Rodent Model of Myocardial Infarction, co-author, FASEB J. 23:626.2 (2009).
|01.01.09
Practices
Industries
Andrew's Insights
Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.27.25
Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split on Scope of IPR Estoppel
As part of the 2012 America Invents Act, statutory estoppel was included to balance the interests of patent owners and patent challengers following an inter partes review (“IPR”). Estoppel prevents an IPR petitioner from later asserting in court that a claim “is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR. 35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2). As applied, estoppel prevents petitioners from later relying in district court or in ITC proceedings on most patents or printed publications – the limited bases upon which petitioner can rely in an IPR. But a question remained, and contradictory district court decisions arose, as to whether petitioners would be estopped from relying on a prior art commercial product (known as “device art,” which could not itself have been raised in the IPR) even if a printed publication describing the product (i.e. a patent or technical manual) was available and presumably could have been raised.
Firm News | 8 min read | 08.15.24
Client Alert | 3 min read | 06.04.24
Federal Circuit Abandons Decades-Old Obviousness Test For Design Patents
Press Coverage | 12.31.23
What Lies Ahead: Here’s What IP Practitioners Will Be Watching in 2024
