Dario Machleidt is an intellectual property litigator. He has chaired several jury trials and an International Trade Commission hearing, examining multiple witnesses in each case. He was a member of the Kilpatrick Townsend team that represented Dr. Barry in his patent infringement suit against Medtronic. Mr. Machleidt put on the first expert of the case and also cross-examined a Medtronic witness. After the seven-day trial, the East Texas jury found that Medtronic willfully infringed Dr. Barry’s patents, rejected its invalidity defenses, and awarded Dr. Barry $20.3 million. The National Law Journal recognized the verdict as one of the “Top 100 Verdicts of 2016.” The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision in January 2019.
Between March and April 2014, Mr. Machleidt served as a Special Deputy Prosecutor in the King County Prosecuting Attorney’s Office. He served as co-trial counsel in five felony jury trials. Mr. Machleidt selected juries, presented opening statements and closing arguments, and examined numerous witnesses during his time as a Special Deputy Prosecutor.
Prior to joining Kilpatrick Townsend, Mr. Machleidt worked as an associate in the Seattle office of a national law firm. While there, he played a critical role in Bowman v. Monsanto Co., a pro bono patent case that reached the U.S. Supreme Court. He was the only associate to chair the Supreme Court oral argument. During law school, Mr. Machleidt served as a judicial extern for Judge Randall R. Rader of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He was also a Comments and Articles Editor of the Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal.
Mr. Machleidt was recognized as a Washington “Rising Star” from 2012 to 2018 by Super Lawyers magazine. From 2011 to 2014, he received the Pro Bono Publico Service Commendation from the Board of Governors of the Washington State Bar Association. Mr. Machleidt actively participates in the Washington legal community and mentors at the University of Washington School of Law.
Mark A. Barry, M.D. v. Medtronic, Inc.
As lead trial counsel to the inventor and patent owner, obtained a verdict of willful infringement and an award of $20.3 for past damages after a seven day jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas. The Court increased the award to $23.6 million after ruling on post-trial motions. The Federal Circuit affirmed the decision in January 2019. The two related inter partes review hearings resulted in an exceedingly rare final determination upholding the patentability of all challenged claims.
Arizona State University v. Seattle Genetics
Summary Judgment Victory for Seattle Genetics in a technology licensing and breach of contract dispute involving a life-saving cancer therapy. After years of litigation and arbitration in district courts, state courts and the American Arbitration Association in Arizona and Washington, Kilpatrick Townsend obtained a definitive victory on summary judgment for Seattle Genetics against Arizona State University in the District of Arizona. The Court held on August 4, 2015, that ASU’s patent infringement claims were barred by the written terms of a contract amendment it had executed with SeaGen over ten years ago. Arizona State University v. Seattle Genetics (D. Ariz.)
Insights View All
University of Washington School of Law, J.D., Intellectual Property Concentration
Pacific Rim Law & Policy Journal, Comments and Articles Editor
Moot Court Honor Board, Member
1L Moot Court Appellate Advocacy Competition, Champion
University of Washington, B.S., Physics (2006) cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Seattle Intellectual Property American Inn of Court, Executive Committee Member (Director at Large)
Washington State Bar Association IP Section, Executive Committee Member (Director at Large)
Federal Circuit Bar Association, Member
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.