Jeff Toney focuses on technology and business litigation. He serves as lead counsel in state and federal courts nationwide. He also has 25 years’ experience in transnational arbitration matters in Europe, the US, and Latin America, including proceedings before the International Chamber of Commerce, the Zurich and Stockholm Chambers of Commerce, the London Court of International Arbitration, and the American Arbitration Association.
His clients include international pharmaceutical and healthcare companies and technology/privacy companies in the financial space. He has represented Equifax, Google and DxO in the technology and financial space, and Mallinckrodt, Teva, UGA Veterinary School, Promotoras Unidas Ltda., Emory University, and Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in healthcare and pharma. He also counsels clients in connection with regulatory matters, including matters before FDA, EPA, USDA and their corresponding agencies and ministries worldwide. Promotoras, for example, has human and animal healthcare products, in particular for poultry, livestock, shrimp and agribusiness.
Jeff has a particular expertise resolving complex business divorce—in particular, joint-venture disputes—and antitrust matters with multi-tier and international markets. He also tries complex commercial disputes concerning business and technology issues arising from the design and manufacturing of products, particularly pharmaceutical delivery systems and medical devices.
Prior to his legal career, Jeff worked as a physical chemist. Jeff has published works in OTS Journal, the Meso-American Research Reporter and the American Journal of Botany.
Represented Mallinckrodt in a series of Hatch-Waxman cases against a number of generic pharmaceutical companies involving their inventions of opioids with extremely low levels of impurities. The first wave of litigation was successful and the defendants are enjoined from launching a product until 2023. Mallinckrodt now seeks a further injunction until 2029*
Represented Mallinckrodt and Nuvo Research in multiple patent infringement cases seeking to enforce patents that cover the arthritis pain medication Pennsaid*
Represented Mallinckrodt in a Hatch-Waxman case against Actavis involving XARTEMIS, an extended release oxycodone HCI and acetaminophen drug approved for treatment of acute pain*
Represented a client in securing a favorable jury trial verdict against Boston Scientific for infringing patents that protect his client’s invention of certain balloon-inflatable coronary stents*
Represented United Promotions and its Colombian counterpart, Promotoras Unidas, in matters arising from misappropriation of patent applications and trade secrets and anticompetitive business practices by a competitor. A settlement was ultimately reached on portions of the claims in Colombia and Mexico, in which the defendant disgorged all revenues*
Represented Equifax in asserting patents directed to Internet/online authentication technology. The matter settled with a licensing arrangement after Markman*
Represented the owner of One Times Square against CBS in the first US litigation concerning digital video insertion technology and rights of publicity*
Represented Kleen-Tax, a leading manufacturer of mats and floor covering, asserting a patent directed to novel manufacturing techniques and novel mat designs. After trial, the court found the client’s patents valid and infringed, awarded “exceptional case” attorneys’ fees*
Represented Gemstar/TV Guide in a series of cases relating to set-top box technologies in which patent infringement, antitrust and patent misuse claims were involved. These cases were reported to be, at one stage, the largest set of patent cases in the country*
Represented Johnson Wax in a dispute concerning automated distribution and logistics systems. The jury entered a verdict in client’s favor, including an award of costs and attorneys’ fees*
Represented Teva Pharmaceuticals, one of the world’s largest pharmaceutical companies, through trial of a Hatch-Waxman case relating to Prevacid*
Represented Teva Pharmaceuticals in a Hatch-Waxman case relating to Crestor
Represented Minerals Technologies through a trial of a series of cases relating to wet-end papermaking technology. The trial focused on novel issues of acid-base chemistry*
Represented Impax Laboratories in a Hatch-Waxman case relating to Prilosec*
Represented Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation in a dispute relating to XIGRIS (drotrecogin alfa), the first drug approved for treatment of sepsis/septic shockin humans*
Represented Emory University in enforcing patents covering Epivir (lamivudine), one of the first anti-retroviral agents approved to treat HIV and HBV*
Represented Adidas in a patent and inventorship dispute concerning novel midsole materials and design*
Represented Rauma, then the largest public company in Scandinavia, in a series of disputes over dissolution of a joint venture to design automated panelboard manufacturing systems*
Represented Unidas, a major developer of chemical products and sanitizers, in a series of cases involving complex business disputes and ownership of intellectual property*
Represented Sunds Defibrator, a leading manufacturer of automated panelboard manufacturing equipment, in an inventorship/business divorce dispute*
Represented Raytheon in claims arising from the design of styrene manufacturing facilties*
Represented SIPA, an Italian packaging manufacturer, in claims over ownership and inventorship of patents covering automated manufacturing of PET bottles*
Men Stopping Violence, former board president and counsel
Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, trustee
Education Tulane University Law School, JD, cum laude, 1991 Tulane University, BS, 1987
Courts/Agencies US Supreme Court US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia Georgia Supreme Court Georgia State and Superior Courts Georgia Court of Appeals
Do not send any information or documents that you want to have treated as secret or confidential. Providing information to McDermott via email links on this website or other introductory email communications will not create an attorney-client relationship; will not preclude McDermott from representing any other person or firm in any matter; and will not obligate McDermott to keep confidential the information you provide. McDermott cannot enter into an attorney-client relationship with you until McDermott has determined that doing so will not create a conflict of interest and until you and McDermott have entered into a written agreement or engagement letter that sets forth the terms of our relationship.