John Scott McBride

I'll research this attorney's background and the tracked cases.

Let me verify the tracked cases and additional details.

Let me verify a few remaining details.

J. Scott McBride — Partner, Bartlit Beck LLP (Chicago)

Focus areas. McBride's patent practice centers on high-stakes, technically complex trials. The largest share of his docket is pharmaceutical and life-sciences patent litigation — Hatch-Waxman/ANDA and biologic disputes over branded drugs — and IAM Patent 1000's 2025 write-up describes him as focusing on pharmaceutical patent litigation and having served as lead trial counsel to major pharmaceutical companies. He also handles semiconductor/memory and hardware patent work (flash memory error-correction technology for Viasat), medical devices (coronary stents, hospital beds), and industrial chemistry (transmission-fluid compositions, crop-science polymorphs). His chemistry background (undergraduate honors in chemistry) fits the pharma and materials-heavy cases he tends to try.

Side preference. He works both sides rather than occupying one lane. The tracked data reflect that split — one plaintiff-side appearance (Viasat) and one defendant-side appearance (Western Digital Technologies v. Viasat) — and his broader track record shows branded pharmaceutical companies as frequent defense-side clients (Gilead, Bayer, Novartis) alongside plaintiff-side enforcement roles (UroPep, Endo, and Viasat). There is no indication of a plaintiff-only/NPE-focused practice; the mix is best characterized as defense-leaning but genuinely bilateral.

Firm context. McBride has spent his entire post-clerkship career at Bartlit Beck (Bartlit Beck Herman Palenchar & Scott LLP), joining in 2003 and becoming partner in 2008. He is not in-house. Before the firm he clerked for Judge Richard D. Cudahy of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit (2002–03).

Notable cases. His most prominent current matter is the Viasat flash-memory enforcement campaign in the Western District of Texas, where he was lead trial counsel and part of the team that won a $229 million jury verdict against Kioxia in July 2026 plus a 3.5% ongoing royalty through 2032; a related action against Western Digital remains pending, and the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's rejection of Kioxia's validity challenge to Viasat's patent in December 2025. On the pharmaceutical side, he was lead trial counsel for Gilead in Regents of the University of Minnesota v. Gilead Sciences, where an IPR invalidated all asserted claims covering sofosbuvir hepatitis-C treatments (the university had sought royalties on more than $70 billion in sales); the Federal Circuit affirmed in 2023, earning the team American Lawyer "Litigator of the Week" runner-up recognition. He also led Gilead's defense in Gilead Sciences v. Lupin (Biktarvy, D. Del., settled favorably), won a $20 million verdict for UroPep against Eli Lilly over Cialis that was affirmed on appeal, and obtained a complete trial victory for Bayer in the Natazia Hatch-Waxman litigation. Note that results in several of these matters are settlements rather than adjudicated outcomes, and the $229 million Kioxia verdict remains subject to post-trial motions and possible appeal.

PTAB / IPR experience. He does appear in PTAB trials, mostly as district-court trial counsel admitted pro hac vice rather than as a registered patent practitioner. Verified appearances include the Gilead-side IPRs against the University of Minnesota (IPR2017-01712/-01753/-02004/-02005), patent-owner representation in PGR2021-00047 (Eisai v. Crystal Pharmaceutical/Bergen, as substitute counsel), and backup counsel for patent owner Gilead in IPR2025-00033 (Cipla v. Gilead). This is meaningful but not a standalone IPR-heavy practice.

Bar / education. Member, Illinois State Bar (admitted 2002); admitted to the N.D. Ill., Seventh Circuit, and Federal Circuit. J.D., University of Chicago Law School (2002, high honors, Order of the Coif); M.S.Ed., Northwestern University (1994); A.B., Dartmouth College (1992, summa cum laude).