Dr. Matthew Hinsch is Co-Leader of Kilpatrick Townsend's Chemistry and Life Sciences practice. Dr. Hinsch's practice concentrates on patent prosecution, primarily within the field of biotechnology. He has advised clients in multiple technical areas, such as genetic modification including CRISPR, immunology and immunotherapy, plant biology, stem cells, disease therapeutics and molecular biology.
In his practice, Dr. Hinsch represents a wide variety of clients, including academic institutions, startup biotechnology and drug discovery companies, and large pharmaceutical companies. He assists clients with patent prosecution, freedom to operate analyses, validity/infringement opinions, IPRs, due diligence reviews and patent portfolio management.
Research for his Ph.D. involved plant molecular biology and the study of the molecular basis of disease resistance in plants.
Dr. Hinsch was recommended by Legal 500 US in 2019 for Patent Prosecution.
University of California, Boalt Hall School of Law, J.D. (1999)
University of California, Berkeley, Ph.D., Plant Pathology (1996)
University of California, San Diego, B.A., Biochemistry (1991)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2001)
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.