Natalie J. Clayton

I'll research this attorney before writing.

Let me verify the notable outcomes and background details.

Summary — Natalie J. Clayton (Alston & Bird LLP)

Specialty / focus. Clayton's patent litigation practice centers on life sciences and pharmaceuticals — Hatch‑Waxman/ANDA disputes and related FDA regulatory and exclusivity questions — and extends into animal health and veterinary biologics, medical devices, chemicals, and LED/smart-lighting technology. Representative subject matter includes recombinant protein and chimeric vaccines for porcine circovirus, ibrutinib (Imbruvica), oxycodone (OxyContin), fenofibrate (Antara), ezetimibe/simvastatin (Vytorin/Zetia), atomoxetine (Strattera), and bupropion (Wellbutrin XL), alongside connected-lighting patents (power management, tunable white, thermal management, connectivity) and automotive engine technology. She is co‑chair of Alston & Bird's Intellectual Property Area, leads the firm's Biotechnology, Pharmaceutical & Life Sciences Patent Litigation team, and sits on the firm's Management Committee.

Side preference. The tracked data show a single appearance, on the defense side, as counsel. That entry is untitled, so it cannot be matched to a specific docket or used to draw a reliable plaintiff/defendant conclusion. Public dockets and the firm's own descriptions show a genuinely mixed practice: substantial defense-side Hatch‑Waxman work for generic/brand clients (Mylan, Actavis, Alphapharm/Teva-side, Sandoz/Lek), defense of Ford in the Ethanol Boosting Systems/MIT EcoBoost suits, and defense of Signify in competitor-initiated cases — but also patentee-side enforcement for Signify and a 2026 pro hac vice appearance for Nutramax in a patent case in the Northern District of Georgia. She is not an NPE/PAE-side filer; her client base is operating companies across pharma, animal health, automotive, lighting, and wireless module sectors.

Firm context and notable matters. All publicly available sources place her at Alston & Bird (New York office); no prior-firm history is reliably sourced, so I am not stating one. Highlights: the Signify v. Lepro Innovation LED patent trial in the District of Nevada, where the jury on February 10, 2026 found all six asserted patents infringed and willfully infringed and awarded roughly $410,500 in past royalties, with post-trial enhancement and a reported ~$4.3 million fee request following; the Signify/Satco LED disputes in the Eastern District of New York and Western District of Texas; the Ford/MIT EcoBoost litigation, in which the PTAB invalidated three MIT patents (U.S. Pat. Nos. 9,810,166; 9,255,519; 10,138,826) in February 2021 after the Federal Circuit affirmed a district court judgment of noninfringement in December 2020; the Boehringer Ingelheim animal-health vaccine matters (D. Kan. and related PGR); and the Xirgo ITC and parallel district court action on UMTS/LTE cellular communication modules. On the non-patent side, she obtained post-trial treble damages, fees, and a permanent injunction in Merck Eprova v. Brookstone, and the related Merck Eprova v. Gnosis false-advertising damages ruling was affirmed by the Second Circuit.

PTAB/IPR and credentials. She has post-grant experience as part of Alston & Bird teams rather than as a high-volume individual PTAB filer — she appeared in the Boehringer Ingelheim PGR2020‑00076 proceeding and was named among the Ford team that won the MIT/EBS IPR invalidation. Court admissions and education: admitted in New York in 2006; J.D., Duke University School of Law, 2005 (per Super Lawyers). This is drawn from firm and ranking-source material; independent verification of her full bar-admission list and any prior firm history was not available from the sources reviewed.