Rachel Echols oversees the day-to-day needs of litigation clients, from the beginning of a case to the end. Although each client’s situation varies, typically, her work begins with development of litigation strategy (and prosecution strategy that may be related to litigations). As the case proceeds, Rachel handles drafting, revising, and filing pleadings and motions, keeping the client up to date on the case, communications with local and opposing counsel, taking and defending depositions, working with experts, hearings, and development of trial testimony.

Any kind of litigation is a complex, dynamic machine made up of many, many moving parts. This is particularly the case if, like Rachel, many of your clients are large multinational companies in any of a variety of industries. She has represented clients in the pharmaceuticals, biosimilars, medical devices, nutraceuticals and dietary supplements, chemical coatings, inorganic glasses, mobile phones, and financial products. She excels at both handling extremely complex cases, and building longstanding relationships with clients that span years, based on a valued combination of continuity, trust, and professional excellence.

Detail-oriented and a skilled strategist, over time, she develops an insider’s understanding of each client’s business which enhances her ability to deliver exceptional efficiency and exemplary client service. She becomes a true partner with her clients, and a valued team member, which serves to enhance her value. In addition to good outcomes, clients universally value predictability and communication in litigation. Rachel delivers both.

Her close client relationships pay other dividends as well. For instance, discovery is easier to streamline and defense of depositions is much more efficient, and effective. By working closely with clients, Rachel is frequently able to bring what seem to be intractable or expensive cases to conclusions which serve her clients’ interests. This could be a trial victory but could also be a favorable summary judgment decision and early case resolution, persuading the PTAB not to institute review proceedings, or simply favorable settlements.

Rachel has represented clients in almost every conceivable tribunal -- U.S. District Courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the U.S. Supreme Court. In addition, she has experience in Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (TTAB) proceedings. Regardless of the forum, Rachel excels at a smart, cost-effective, and strategic approach to litigation.


Representative matters include:

  • Dentsply Sirona Inc. v. Edge Endo LLC, No. 17-01041 (D.N.M.) – Represented Plaintiffs Dentsply Sirona Inc. and Tulsa Dental Prod. LLC d/b/a Dentsply Sirona Endodontics in a patent infringement action for patents related to improvements in the design of endodontic files.
  • PPG Industries, Inc. v. Valspar Sourcing, Inc., Nos. 2016-1406, -1409 (CAFC); Reexamination No. 95/001,950; Reexamination No. 95/001,951 – Represented Petitioner and Appellant PPG Industries in inter partes re-examinations and appeal actions of two patents related to can coatings.
  • Petito v. Nature’s Bounty, Inc., Nos. 2014-1760, -1761, -1763, -1765 (CAFC); Petito v. Nature’s Bounty, Inc., Nos. 13-8040, -8077, -8074, -8128 (SDNY) – Represented Defendants and Appellees Nature’s Bounty entities in patent infringement litigation for patents related to nutritional supplements.
  • Cephalon, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 2013-1523 (CAFC); Cephalon, Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc., No. 11-0164 (D. Del.) – Represented Defendant and Appellant Mylan Pharmaceuticals in Hatch-Waxman litigation related to fentanyl buccal tablets.
  • Bayer v. Watson et al., Nos. 2012-1397, -1398, -1400 (CAFC) – Represented Appellants on appeal in Hatch-Waxman litigation related to birth control pills.
  • JDS Therapeutics, LLC v. CVS Health Corp., No. 15-4365 (SDNY) – Defended CVS in patent infringement action for patents related to nutritional supplements.
  • Cipher Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Actavis Laboratories FL, Inc., No. 13-6502 (D.N.J.) – Defended Actavis in Hatch-Waxman litigation for patents related to isotretinoin.
  • Certain Lithium Silicate Materials and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-911 (ITC) – Represented Dentsply International Inc. Respondents in a Section 337 investigation brought by Ivoclar Vivadent related to glass ceramic blocks for dental restoration.
  • Application of Novartis Pharmaceuticals Canada Inc., No. 13-00011 (C.D. Cal.) – Represented Watson Laboratories Inc. in 28 U.S.C. § 1782 action to subpoena pharmaceutical and component parts.
  • Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Sebelius, No. 12-524 (D.D.C.) – Represented Mylan Pharmaceuticals in action regarding Hatch-Waxman marketing exclusivity.
  • Edge Endo LLC v. Scianamblo, IPR2018-01320, IPR2018-01321, IPR2018-01322 (PTAB) – Defended Patent Owner Dr. Scianamblo against three petitions for inter partes review brought by Edge Endo. PTAB denied institution of all three proceedings.
  • Edge Endo LLC v. Maillefer Instruments Holding, IPR2018-01349 (PTAB) – Defended Patent Owner Maillefer Instruments Holding against petition for inter partes review brought by Edge Endo. PTAB denied institution.

Honors & Recognitions

Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers (2024)

Washington, D.C. Super Lawyers "Rising Star" (2017-2022)



J.D., Tulane University Law School (magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, Tulane Law Review)

B.S., Zoology, Auburn University (summa cum laude, Dean's Medalist in Biological Sciences)

Bar & Court Admissions

Bar Admissions

  • District of Columbia
  • Georgia
Jump to Page

By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use.