Skip to content

Matthew McFarlane

Matthew McFarlane is a seasoned attorney, scientist, and nonprofit leader with a diverse career bridging intellectual property law, life sciences, and philanthropy. He brings two decades of experience advising clients in sectors ranging from medicine and biotechnology to entertainment and media. His practice focuses on intellectual property litigation, dispute resolution, and providing strategic counsel to growing companies navigating complex legal and regulatory challenges.

Before joining Leichtman Law PLLC, Mr. McFarlane honed his legal expertise at prominent firms and as an adjunct professor of law, where he taught patent claim drafting and transactions. He has successfully represented clients in high-stakes patent disputes and advised on technology licensing, corporate governance, and compliance.

Matt’s academic background includes an ScB in Biochemistry from Brown University, a PhD in Molecular & Cellular Physiology from Stanford University Medical School, and a JD from Fordham University School of Law. His scientific research, published in leading journals, complements his legal practice with a unique interdisciplinary perspective.

In addition to his legal work, Matt is a dedicated advocate for science and education. As President of The Grass Foundation, he leads efforts to support neuroscience research and early-career scientists. He has also co-founded GROUT, a consulting firm specializing in strategic communication and collaborative project development.

Outside the office, Matt has served as a director and advisor to several nonprofit organizations dedicated to environmental conservation, individual rights, and access to justice, embodying his commitment to societal progress through law and leadership.

Education

Fordham University School of Law, J.D. (2005)

Stanford University School of Medicine, Ph.D., Molecular & Cellular Physiology (1997)

Brown University, Sc.B., Biochemistry, with honors (1991)

Bar and Court Admissions

New York

Massachusetts

Maryland

District of Columbia

District Court, Southern District of New York

District Court, Eastern District of New York

District Court, Massachusetts

District Court, Maryland

District Court, District of Columbia

Court of Appeals, Second Circuit

Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

United States Supreme Court

Selective Case Results

Counsel for company obtaining summary judgment of non-infringement in the Northern District of Illinois, on a patent relating to computer numerical controlled milling machines.

Counsel for company sued in multi-district patent infringement litigation involving patents for genetic-based tests to detect genes linked to hereditary cancer, obtaining a dismissal of all claims.

Counsel for company sued on patents relating to biotechnology tools, obtaining summary judgment of invalidity.

Counsel for an inventor in a lawsuit seeking declaratory judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of patent claims covering prenatal testing methods.

Counsel for a laboratory in a patent infringement lawsuit involving genetically engineered mice.

Counsel for a domestic agricultural biotechnology company in a patent infringement, patent licensing, and antitrust lawsuit involving genetically modified agricultural products.

Counsel for a pharmaceutical company in a patent infringement jury trial and subsequent appeal in a case involving analogs of recombinant therapeutic proteins.

Counsel for a domestic biotechnology company and  universities in a patent infringement jury trial and subsequent appeal in a case involving immune system treatment methods.

Counsel for pharmaceutical companies in a patent litigation involving methods for the recombinant expression of proteins.

Counsel for several pharmaceutical companies engaged in Hatch-Waxman litigation for the sale of generic pharmaceutical products.

Provided freedom to operate opinions and pre-litigation counseling for a biotechnology company concerning therapeutic antibodies.

Counsel for a biotechnology company in a patent litigation involving bacterially-produced recombinant therapeutic proteins.

Past results are reported to provide the reader with an indication of the type of litigation we practice. They do not and should not be construed to create an expectation of result in any other case, as all cases are dependent upon their own unique fact situation and applicable law.

Recognition

Named a “New York Metro Rising Star,” Super Lawyers (2014-2016)

Named a “Life Sciences Star,”LMG Life Sciences (2014-2016)

Pro Bono Service Award, The Legal Aid Society (2009-2010, 2014)

Being named to the list or receiving the award is not intended and should not be viewed as comparative to other lawyers or to create an expectation about results that might be achieved in a future matter.

In The News

  • Quoted in “Fed. Cir. Denies ‘Dolly’ Clone Rehearing; Supreme Court Only Option Available,” Bloomberg BNA Life Sciences Law & Industry Report (August 15, 2014)
  • Quoted in “Biotech Reels Over Natural Products Ruling,” Scientific American (July 9, 2014)
  • Quoted in “Biotech Reels Over Patent Ruling,” Nature (July 8, 2014) 
  • Quoted in “PTO’s Mayo/Myriad Eligibility Guidance May Chill New Drugs, Diagnostics, Panels Says,” Pharmaceutical Law & Industry Report (July 1, 2014) 
  • Quoted in “Analysis: Myriad, Mayo Fuel Biopharma Patent Rejections,” SCRIP Intelligence (June 27, 2014) 
  • Quoted in “USPTO Extends Deadline to Comment on Subject Matter Eligibility Analysis,” Personalized Medicine Bulletin (June 26, 2014) 
  • Quoted in “Bloomberg BNA Study Analyzes the Impact of Recent Supreme Court Decisions that Leave Life Sciences Industry Under Cloud of Uncertainty: Report Released at 2014 BIO International Convention Explores Important Changes to Patent Process,” BioMedReports, PR Newswire, IT Business Net, Congoo, Bloomberg BNA (June 25, 2014) 
  • Quoted in “PTO’s Mayo/Myriad Eligibility Guidance May Chill New Drugs, Diagnostics, Panel Says,” Bloomberg BNA Medical Research Law & Policy Report (July 2, 2014) 
  • Quoted in “5 Recent Fed. Circ. Rulings IP Attys Need to Know,” Law360 (January 9, 2014) 
  • Quoted in “Stem Cell Patent Case Will be Early Test of Myriad’s Reach,” Law360 (July 10, 2013) 
  • On June 13, 2013, Mr. McFarlane was quoted in numerous publications and news sources for his comment on the Supreme Court’s ruling that isolated human genes cannot be patented.
  • Quoted in “Justices Cast Skeptical Eye on Human Gene Patents,” Law360 (April 15, 2013)

CBS News

Law360

Presentations & Publications