Grantland G. Drutchas

P: 312.913.2121
F: 312.913.0002

Grantland G. Drutchas, a founder and current managing partner of McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP, has more than 20 years of experience in the practice of intellectual property law, with a particular emphasis on litigation, licensing, and client counseling. Mr. Drutchas serves as Chair of the firm's PTAB Trials Practice Group and as Chair of the firm's Litigation & Appeals Practice Group. His trial experience includes both jury and bench trials, as well as arguing appeals before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. His litigation experience encompasses disciplines ranging from recombinant DNA technology, cell signaling, pharmaceuticals, medical diagnostics and devices to telecommunication transmission systems, conference phones, lampposts, and injection molds.

He has also litigated trademark and trade dress infringement actions. Mr. Drutchas has been involved in many notable and precedent-setting cases. In one, he obtained the largest jury verdict ever awarded in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. He also has had extensive experience in drafting licenses and litigating license disputes.

Published Articles

"Intellectual Property Litigation," Lawyer Monthly, September 2011


Intellectual Property Owners Association
  • Vice Chair, Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology Issues Committee
  • Former Vice Chair, Licensing Committee

Chicago-Kent College of Law
  • Adjunct Professor

Kellogg School of Management, Northwestern University
  • Former Adjunct Professor

Chair of the Local School Council and former PTO President, LaSalle II Language Academy, Chicago Public Schools

Board Member, Wicker Park Committee Neighborhood Association

IPO’s Women in IP Law Committee


Best Lawyers in America

Illinois Super Lawyers

Upcoming Events

October 16, 2018
MBHB Attorneys Grantland Drutchas and Aaron Gin, Ph.D. Are the Featured Speakers

Past Events

October 17, 2017
MBHB Attorneys Grant Drutchas and Aaron Gin, Ph.D. Are Featured Presenters
April 27, 2017
MBHB Partners Grantland Drutchas and Patrick Are Featured Co-Presenters
October 19, 2016
MBHB Partners Grantland Drutchas and Joshua Rich Are the Featured Presenters
April 7, 2016
MBHB Partner Grant Drutchas Is a Featured Speaker at Chicago-Kent College of Law-Sponsored Program
October 20, 2015
MBHB Partners Grantland G. Drutchas and James L. Lovsin Are the Featured Presenters


September 22,2017 (snippets Alert)
In In re: Cray, Inc, No. 2017-129, the CAFC issued a writ of mandamus vacating Judge Gilstrap’s decision involving venue under 28 U.S.C. §1400(b) in Raytheon Co. v. Cray Inc., Case No. 15-cv-1554 (E.D. Texas). That earlier decision raised concerns over whether the Supreme Court’s venue holding in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, 137 S. Ct. 1514 (2017), would be given full effect. Judge Gilstrap had applied a broad 4-factor test for finding whether a defendant such as Cray had a “regular and established place of business” in the Eastern District of Texas under §1400(b). Judge Gilstrap’s test had attracted significant attention, and posited the Eastern District of Texas against most other district courts in applying § 1400(b).
Summer 2017 (snippets)
On May 22, 2017, in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC, the Supreme Court reversed decades of expansive patent venue interpretation by the Federal Circuit. The ruling in TC Heartland immediately overturns long-standing “forum-shopping” practices and introduces a longer-term issue of defining “a regular and established place of business.”
June 12, 2017 (snippets Alert)
Today, in Oil States Energy Services v. Greene’s Energy Grp., LLC, Case No. 16-712, the Supreme Court accepted certiorari on the question of whether the IPR regime set out by Congress in the AIA is constitutional. At issue is whether, once patents are issued, the resulting patent rights are a “public right,” in which case their validity can be resolved by an agency, or a “private property right,” in which case the validity issues must be addressed by Article III courts and arguably subject to the Seventh Amendment’s right to trial by jury.
May 22, 2017 (snippets Alert)
MBHB snippets Alert - May 22, 2017

Today in TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Food Brands Grp. LLC, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), the Supreme Court reversed a long-standing practice permitting venue over domestic corporations to be had wherever the court had personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Now, however, “[a]s applied to domestic corporations, ‘reside[nce]’ in § 1400(b) refers only to the State of incorporation.” Id., p. 10.
March 21, 2017 (snippets Alert)
As was widely expected from the Justices’ positions at oral arguments, a nearly unanimous Supreme Court today struck down the patent laches doctrine in SCA Hygiene Prods. Aktiebolag, v. First Quality Baby Prods., LLC, 580 U.S. __ (March 21, 2017). In the opinion by Justice Alito, the Supreme Court applied the rationale of its own prior decision in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 134 S. Ct. 1962 (2014), finding that the existence of a six-year statute of limitations in the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. §286, precluded the application of laches. As such, “laches cannot be interposed as a defense against damages where the infringement occurred within the period prescribed by §286.”
Spring 2015 (snippets)
The America Invents Act (AIA) created several adjudicative proceedings within the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office, including inter partes review, post-grant review, and covered business method review (IPR, PGR, and CBM, respectively). The AIA also provided explicit estoppel provisions with respect to District Court litigation for those proceedings.
Generate a PDF of your page(s)
Page has been queued
An error has occurred
Added to queue
Confirm Delete All Message
No Items in Packet Message
To add a page, select Add. To view the package, select View.