Rachel J. Elsby is a counsel in the firm’s IP practice, where she focuses on patent litigation and appellate proceedings. Dr. Elsby has experience in a variety of technologies, including antibodies, pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, mechanical devices and telecommunications. Dr. Elsby has experience in all ranges of litigation from pre-suit investigations to trial and appeal. She has prepared expert reports; taken and defended depositions; managed large-scale discovery; drafted dispositive motions, claim construction briefs and appellate briefs; and argued motions in court.

Practice & Background

Prior to joining Akin Gump, Dr. Elsby served as a law clerk to the Honorable Pauline Newman of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Before her clerkship, Dr. Elsby worked in the IP practice of a national firm, where she focused on district court litigation, Federal Circuit appeals and interference proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board at the United States Patent and Trademark Office.

Dr. Elsby received her J.D. from George Mason University School of Law in 2010, where she was an associate editor of the Civil Rights Law Journal. While in law school, Dr. Elsby also worked as a scientific advisor in a D.C. law firm and served as a judicial intern to the Honorable Theodore Essex at the International Trade Commission.

Prior to law school, Dr. Elsby earned her Ph.D. in immunology from the University of Miami. Her research focused on understanding the mechanisms of the immune response to malignant disease and virus infection, and developing oncolytic viruses to eliminate cancer cells exhibiting defective immune function. She received her B.S. in microbiology and immunology, as well as English literature, from the University of Miami in 2002, where she was a member of the women’s varsity soccer team.

Representative Matters

Dr. Elsby’s recent engagements include:

  • currently representing pharmaceutical companies in the correction of inventorship action related to patents involving methods of treatment for cancer with biologics (D. Mass.)
  • currently representing pharmaceutical companies in patent infringement litigations related to methods of treatment for cancer with biologics (D. Del.)
  • currently representing the family of a deceased veteran in an appeal before the Federal Circuit (Fed. Cir.)
  • currently representing former government employee in appeal of termination (Fed. Cir.)
  • Ultratec, Inc. and CapTel, Inc. v. Sorenson Communications, Inc. and CaptionCall, LLC (Fed. Cir.): representing appellees Sorenson and CaptionCall in an appeal from district court litigation
  • Ultratec, Inc. v. CaptionCall, LLC (Fed. Cir.): currently representing appellee CaptionCall in the appeals of nine inter partes review proceedings before the Federal Circuit
  • representing pharmaceutical companies in patent infringement suits involving methods of treatment for cancer (D. Del.); succeeded in obtaining a favorable settlement
  • representing a biotechnology company in a patent infringement suit related to DNA detection and sequencing systems (D. Del.)
  • representing pharmaceutical companies in patent infringement suits involving antibody drugs for use in treating cancer (D.N.J.); succeeded in obtaining a favorable settlement
  • Cheese Systems, Inc. v. Tetra Pak Cheese and Powder Systems, Inc., (W.D. Wis.); guiding patent owners in a successful infringement action to summary judgment and appeal
  • National Fuel Marketing Co. LLC v. National Fuel Gas Co., (M.D. Pa.): representing large utility company in a dispute over the NATIONAL FUEL trademark
  • Loughlin v. Ling (Fed. Cir.): successfully representing party in an appeal from patent interference
  • representing a chemical manufacturer in the correction of inventorship action related to compounds used to improve the barrier properties of plastic bottles, which resulted in favorable outcome at trial
  • representing a patent owner in an infringement suit involving patents to progressive lens technology in litigation that resulted in a favorable outcome at trial
  • Tobinick v. Olmarker, Patent Interference No. 105,866, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board
  • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and Bayer BioScience N.V. v. Carnegie Institution of Washington and the University of Massachusetts, Patent Interference No. 105,754, USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Speaking Engagements

  • Issues in Appeals from the PTAB, PTAB Bar Association Webinar, August 1, 2017 (panelist).
  • The Impact of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law, February 28, 2017 (panelist).
  • Annual Survey of American Law, New York University, February 21, 2017 (panelist).
  • panel discussion on Two Years of Federal Circuit Review of PTAB Proceedings: What We Know and Still Don't Know, February 7, 2017 (panelist).
  • panel discussion on Tips for Appellate Writing, DC Bar Young Lawyers Drafting Series, January 21, 2015 (panelist).
  • panel discussion on Discovery and the ITC, Bar Association of DC – Patent, Trademark and Copyright Section, February 6, 2013 (moderator).