Nathan Evans is a registered patent attorney with Woods Rogers who focuses on intellectual property (IP)—including patents, trademarks, copyrights, and trade secrets. He helps companies in a variety of industries protect and monetize their IP rights.
Based in Charlottesville, Nathan counsels clients in virtually all IP-related topics, including litigation, patent preparation and prosecution, opinions, enforcement strategies, and licensing. He has worked on matters before state and federal district courts, the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office (including the Patent Trial and Appeal Board), the U.S. International Trade Commission, and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Nathan has prosecuted many patent applications before the USPTO and been involved with the post-grant review process. His litigation experience also includes cases involving the infringement, validity, and enforceability of patents covering AstraZeneca’s Crestor and Eli Lilly’s Zyprexa and Evista pharmaceuticals. In addition to prosecution and litigation regarding pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, he has participated in matters involving electrical and mechanical engineering, computer software applications, medical devices, networking solutions, cellular phone technology, multilayer plastic films, paper products, clothing articles, pultruded and extruded structural articles, and optical discs (CDs).
Nathan has substantial experience with India’s patent laws and co-chaired an American Bar Association subcommittee on changes to Indian patent law. He also acted as a co-chair of a subcommittee of the Patent System Policy Planning Division Committee. He now serves as President of the Virginia Bar Association’s IP Council, Virginia Business magazine recognized Nathan as a “Legal Elite,” and he has been named a “10 Best” Attorney in the Intellectual Property Division by the American Institute of Legal Counsel ™.
Nathan double-majored in biology and psychology at the University of Virginia before entering law school. He writes and speaks on various topics, including IP issues generally, patent laws in India, and prescription drug licensing. Nathan was a judge for the 2019 Apex Entrepreneur Challenge Finals, Virginia Tech’s annual entrepreneurship event. He joined the Woods Rogers Charlottesville office in 2013.
Virginia Bar Association
Intellectual Property Council:
Virginia State Bar
Member, IP Section
District of Columbia Bar Association
Member, IP section
American Intellectual Property Law Association
Charlottesville Business Innovation Council
Charlottesville Chamber of Commerce
Charlottesville Mayor’s Advisory Council on Innovation and Technology
“Turn Ideas Into Valuable Intellectual Property Assets,” Lynchburg Business, October 2016
“Patenting Computer Software Applications: The New Wild West,” CBIC Blog, March 2015
“IP Enforcement Webinar,” VirginiaBio, September 2016
“Who Owns Your Intellectual Property?”, Roanoke Blacksburg Technology Council (RBTC), August 2015
Nathan’s experience highlights include:
- Lead counsel for plaintiff in litigation relating to e-commerce platform. Case settled favorably. Salem Tools, Inc. v. Landmark Technology A, LLC, 7:19-cv-00738-EKD (W.D. Va. Dec. 2019)
- Acted as lead counsel and successfully orally argued for Petitioner in USPTO post-grant review relating to cybersecurity/data privacy software technology. Institution granted and challenged patent claims invalidated (2019)
- Lead counsel for defendants in litigation relating to shoe technology. Successfully mediated. Rothy’s, Inc. v. JKM Technologies, LLC et al., 3:18CV00067 (W.D. Va. 2018)
- Lead counsel for plaintiff in litigation relating to e-commerce platform. Case settled favorably. Moore & Giles, Inc. v. Landmark Technology, LLC, 6:18-cv-00052-NKM (W.D. Va. 2018)
- Lead counsel for plaintiff in litigation relating to trademark dispute. Successfully mediated. Virginia Industrial Plastics, Inc. v. Cabinet Saver LLC (W.D. Va. 2018)
- Lead counsel for plaintiff in litigation relating to medical device technology. Case settled favorably. Human Design Medical, LLC v. My Health, Inc., 1:16-cv-00767 (D. Del. 2016)
- Successfully argued patent claim construction issues in favorable Markman ruling (W.D. Va. 2015)
- Successfully helped defend lucrative electrical engineering patent and license in significant jury trial victory (S.D.N.Y. 2013)
- In re Rosuvastatin Calcium Patent Litigation (D. Del.). Helped successfully obtain determination of infringement, validity, and enforceability of an Orange Book listed patent for AstraZeneca over the drug product Crestor®
- Eli Lilly & Co. v. Zenith Goldline Pharms., Inc. (S.D. Ind., Fed. Cir.). Helped successfully obtain determination of infringement, validity, and enforceability of an Orange Book listed patent for Eli Lilly over the drug product Zyprexa®
- Active in other successful Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) patent infringement litigations defending challenges to pharmaceutical patents, including patents on Eli Lilly and Company’s Evista® pharmaceutical
Virginia Bio and Ampel BioSolutions | Everything You Wanted to Know About Patent Law but Were Afraid to Ask | February 28, 2020
Virginia Bar Association | Intellectual Property / Business CLE | January 24, 2020
NIH & NSF SBIR Phase I, II & Commercialization Workshop | IP Strategies for SBIR Applicants & Awardees | October 17, 2019
Virginia Bar Association 129th Summer Meeting | The Year in IPIT Law | July 21, 2019
Entrepreneur's Edge | Protect Your Tech: IP Strategies in the Innovation Age | May 29, 2019
Virginia Law Emerging Companies and Venture Capital Club Meeting | Advising Entrepreneurs and Emerging Companies on IP-related Issues | October 16, 2018
Roanoke Blacksburg Technology Council/RAMP Accelerator | Legal Issues for Startups | September 15, 2018
Virginia Bar Association | The Year in IP and IT Law | July 20, 2018
SEMINARS + EVENTS
Using Intellectual Property as a Business Asset | May 10, 2018
Fourd Kemper and Nathan Evans Named as Principals | December 23, 2019
“Legal Elite” Ranking Lists 30 Woods Rogers Attorneys | December 10, 2019
Lawyer case results depend upon a variety of factors unique to each case. Case results do not guarantee or predict a similar result in any future case undertaken by the lawyer.