Main Menu


John Garvish is a principal in the Austin office of McKool Smith. His practice deals with intellectual property and complex commercial litigation. Prior to joining McKool Smith, John served as a judicial clerk for the Honorable Alvin A. Schall of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit from 2002 to 2003. John has published in the areas of molecular biology, biochemistry, and patent law. John has taught courses in Genetics, Toxicology, and Pharmacology. John has also presented an invited lecture on patent law and its interplay with biotechnology and has been involved in panel discussions regarding the current state of patent law from a former Federal Circuit clerk's perspective.


Representative Matters

  • Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sanofi v. Immunex Corp. and Amgen Inc. Representation of Regeneron and Sanofi in patent infringement litigation related to their first in class biologic drug Dupixent ®. In addition, we represent Regeneron and Sanofi in several IPR proceedings before the USPTO regarding U.S. Patent No. 8,679,487 held by Immunex and Amgen. John was the architect of the strategic representation of Regeneron and Sanofi in a multi-prong patent attack that ultimately led to invalidation of the ’487 Patent by the USPTO via IPR petition. The case is currently being appealed by Immunex and Amgen.
  • The Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine, Inc. MedImmune LLC v. Henry M. Jackson Foundation for the Advancement of Military Medicine Inc. et al. Represented the Jackson Foundation and the doctors who invented the drug marketed by MedImmune as Synagis against allegations of breach of their license agreement with MedImmune. After the Court ruled in my clients’ favor on the majority of the summary judgment rulings the case settled favorably for my clients.
  • Ciphergen Biosystems, Inc. Health Discovery Corporation v. Ciphergen Biosystems Inc. Represented Ciphergen in the defense of allegations of patent infringement. The alleged infringed patents are directed to the use of learning machines for examining differential protein expression in the search for biomarkers to use as either drugs targets or for use in designing diagnostic tests. The case was originally filed in the Eastern District of Texas. We successfully moved for a transfer of venue to the Northern District of California. Once in California, we filed a motion for disqualification of Health Discovery Corporation's counsel and a motion for summary judgment of invalidity on the asserted patents. The case settled prior to the case management conference on terms favorable to our client.
  • Repligen Corp. and The Regents of the University of Michigan. Repligen Corp. and The Regents of the University of Michigan v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. Represented Repligen and the Regents of the University of Michigan in a patent infringement action related to a treatment for rheumatoid arthritis that involved competitive inhibition of the costimulatory signal required for T-helper cell activation. This case involved Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Orencia product and settled favorably for our clients.
  • Medtronic Inc. Prior representation of Medtronic in several matters involving cardiovascular stents and pacemakers.
  • Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics and Novo-Nordisk. Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics and Novo-Nordisk v. Bayer Healthcare LLC, Bayer AG, and CSL Behring LLC. Representing Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics and Novo-Nordisk in a patent infringement action involving a treatment for Hemophilia A. This case settled favorably.
  • The Rockefeller Univ. and Chiron Corp. (now known as Novartis Vaccines & Diagnostics). The Rockefeller Univ. and Chiron Corp. v. Centocor Inc. and Abbott Laboratories. Represented The Rockefeller University and Chiron in patent infringement litigation related to antibody based therapy for certain autoimmune disorders. This case settled favorably.
  • Holly Corporation. Frontier Oil Corporation v. Holly Corporation. Represented Holly Corp. in a breach of contract action that resulted from a failed merger with Frontier Oil Corp. Frontier Oil Corp. sued Holly Corp., claiming that Holly Corp. had breached a merger agreement and that Holly Corp.’s breach resulted in hundreds of millions of dollars of damages to Frontier Oil Corp. Holly Corp. counterclaimed, asserting that Frontier’s filing suit was the actual breach of the merger agreement. The case was tried in Delaware Chancery Court, resulting in a finding of no liability for our client, Holly Corp.


Rankings & Honors

  • Recognized in Best Lawyers in America for Litigation: IP and Patent, 2023
  • Listed in Super Lawyers for Intellectual Property Litigation, 2014-2015
  • Named a Texas "Rising Star" by Super Lawyers, 2009-2012


Community & Professional Activities

  • Austin Intellectual Property Law Association
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association

Media & Events



"The Catalytic Mechanism of a Pyrimidine Dimer-specific Glycosylase (pdg)/Abasic Lyase, chlorella virus-pdg" The Journal of Biological Chemistry, 04.02.1999

"Active-site Determination of a Pyrimidine Dimer Glycosylase" Journal of Molecular Biology


J.D., with Honors, Duke University School of Law, 2002

  • Senior editor, Journal of Law & Contemporary Problems
  • Topic editor, Duke Law and Technology Review

Ph.D., Microbiology and Immunology, The University of Texas Medical Branch, 1999

B.A., Biology, The Johns Hopkins University, 1993

Court Admissions

  • State of Texas
  • The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • The U.S. District Courts for the Northern, Southern, Western, and Eastern Districts of Texas

Bar Associations

  • Federal Circuit Bar Association
Back to Page