John Pratt joined the firm in 1977. He founded and led the phenomenal growth of the firm's Atlanta patent prosecution practice. Mr. Pratt practices primarily in the patent area, including patent prosecution, litigation and licensing.

Mr. Pratt served as general counsel to an Internet consulting firm, Enterpulse, from 1999 to 2001, during which period the firm survived the Internet downturn. Mr. Pratt lectures at continuing education seminars, particularly on patent law, licensing, trade secret protection and restrictive covenants. He was involved in drafting the Georgia Trade Secrets Act of 1990.

Mr. Pratt is listed as #1 in the 2014 and the three immediately preceding editions of Chambers USA for Intellectual Property and has been listed in that publication each year since 2005. He was listed as an International Who's Who of Patent Lawyers for 2011 and 2013 and was also listed in the 2011, 2013 and 2014 editions of International Who's Who of Business Lawyers in the area of Patent Law. Mr. Pratt has also been listed in The Best Lawyers in America® for 2017 and each of the 25 years immediately preceding. He was recognized as a Georgia "Super Lawyer" in Intellectual Property in 2016 and the seven years immediately preceding and for Intellectual Property Litigation in 2009 by Super Lawyers magazine. Mr. Pratt was named by Legal Media Group to its 2010 and 2013 Guide to the World's Leading Patent Law Practitioners. In 2016 and the four years immediately preceding, he was named a top patent practitioner by IAM Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners. Mr. Pratt was recommended by Legal 500 U.S. in the areas of Patent Prosecution and Non-Contentious Trademark Law in from 2012 to 2016 for Patent Prosecution. He was also honored in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016 as a "Leading Lawyer" by Legal 500 U.S. Mr. Pratt was named as one of Georgia's "Legal Elite" by Georgia Trend magazine. He was recognized as an "IP Star" by Managing Intellectual Property magazine in 2017 and the four years immediately preceding and is AV® rated by Martindale-Hubbell.

An accomplished woodworker, furniture maker and woodworking tool expert, Mr. Pratt devotes a portion of his practice to tool and furniture patent matters. His woodworking has been the subject of an ABA Journal article, and he has been featured in the Fulton County Daily Report and the Atlanta Business Chronicle for the American Flag that he recently created. The flag is made of black cherry (red), curly maple (white) and walnut (brown and dyed blue) and currently hangs in Kilpatrick Townsend's Atlanta office.

*CV, BV, and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedure's standards and policies.


  • Harvard University, J.D. (1977)
  • Clemson University, B.S., Electrical Engineering (1974)

Bar Admissions

  • Georgia (1977)


  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (1979)
  • Fulton County Superior Court
  • Georgia Court of Appeals
  • Georgia Supreme Court
  • Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Who We Are

Suite 2800, 1100 Peachtree Street NE
Atlanta, GA, 30309-4528
t +1 404.815.6367
f +1 404.541.3348

John S. Pratt

Experience Highlights

Con Pac S., Inc. v. Weyerhaeuser Co.
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of Weyerhaeuser Company, a major U.S. forest products manufacturer, in a patent infringement suit more
E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, et al. v. BASF Plant Science GmbH, et al.
Represented DuPont in patent dispute with BASF involving technology related to herbicide-resistant genetically modified corn. Litigation resulted in more
Patent litigation for provider of automatic order fulfillment systems
The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of a provider of automatic order fulfillment systems in a patent infringement suit brought by a pharmacy more
Mohawk Industries Inc. and Shaw Industries Inc. v. Interface Inc.
Represented Interface Inc. in a suit filed by two competitors alleging that Interface had "falsely marked" certain carpet tiles and thus was subject more