Dr. Tara Nealey chairs the Biotechnology and Life Sciences Patent Prosecution practice group. Bringing a background in academic physiology research, she focuses her practice on clients with intellectual property questions relating to the full range of life science technologies. Her experience encompasses over two decades of IP counsel to clients of all sizes, including individual inventors, public and private universities and research institutions, start-up companies, mid-size firms and Fortune 500 companies. Tara has extensive experience guiding clients through development of robust patent portfolios; guiding international patenting strategy; analyzing patent landscapes and key competitors’ patents; preparing freedom-to-operate (non-infringement) and patent invalidity opinions; analyzing strengths and weaknesses of patent portfolios, and handling IP due diligence in mergers and acquisitions; and analyzing in- and out-licenses of patented technologies.

She routinely assists early stage companies with understanding the relevant patent landscape and securing the IP protection necessary for successful rounds of funding. Important aspects of Tara’s practice also include advising on legal aspects of licensing and commercialization strategies, and reviewing technology and “know-how” licenses, confidentiality agreements, and material transfer agreements. She also counsels clients on trade secret protection and unfair competition, and related copyright and trademark issues.

Tara has worked on a range of cutting edge life science technologies, including:

  • Cell-based therapies
  • Pharmaceuticals and Medical Treatments
  • Biosimilars
  • Genome editing techniques including CRISPR systems, meganucleases, TALENs and ZFN’s
  • RNAi technologies
  • Peptides and proteins
  • Fusion (chimeric) proteins
  • Recombinant expression systems
  • Antibodies
  • Vaccines
  • Vectors
  • Cell membrane permeable molecules
  • Molecular tools for agricultural pest control
  • Cell culture systems
  • Engineered tissues
  • Protein-tagging methods and labels
  • Genetically modified organisms
  • Bioinformatics tools and methods
  • Medical diagnostic devices
  • Medical imaging compositions and techniques
  • Neural therapies
  • Brain-computer interfaces
  • Smart catheters and stents
  • Orthopedic devices
  • Functionalized biocompatible nanoparticles
  • Nano-engineered bioassay techniques

Education

  • Saint Louis University (J.D., magna cum laude, 2001)
    • Dean's Scholarship; Sigma Alpha Nu Honor Society; Order of the Woolsack; Law Review
  • Harvard Medical School (Postdoctoral Fellowship, 1994)
    • Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary
  • University of Rochester (Ph.D., 1992)
    • Physiology; Concentration in Neuroscience
  • Brown University (A.B., 1984)
    • Biomedical Ethics

Bar Admission

  • Missouri, 2001
  • Admitted to practice before the United States Patent and Trademark Office

Professional Affiliations

  • The Bar Association of Metropolitan St. Louis
  • The American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Intellectual Property Owners Association

Recognition

  • Named to National Law Journal’s list of 2023 Emerging Therapies/Life Sciences Trailblazers
  • Selected for inclusion in the IAM Patent 1000 list of the World's Leading Patent Practitioners, 2022-2026, Missouri - Recommended
  • Selected for Best Lawyers® "Lawyer of the Year" in St. Louis for Patent Law, 2023
  • Selected for inclusion in the Most Influential Business Women by St. Louis Business Journal, June 2022
  • "Client Choice Award" winner for Patents in Missouri, 2017
  • Selected for inclusion in Best Lawyers in America® for:
    • Biotechnology and Life Sciences Practice, 2025-2026
    • Patent Law, 2014-2026
  • Named a Top Patent Attorney in St. Louis by Small Business Monthly magazine, February 2018
  • Recipient of the Pro Bono Award from the Missouri Lawyers Weekly's annual Women's Justice Awards, 2018
  • Leader of Distinction, YWCA Metro Saint Louis, 2017
Publications
All Publications
Federal Circuit Strikes Life Sciences Patent Over Insufficient Disclosure of Particular Species
Key Takeaways: The Federal Circuit held that general disclosure of any part of a compound may be insufficient to support a priority date for a specific species within the genus. The decision underscores that every element of a claimed species, even noncritical components, must be clearly disclosed in the priority application. Applicants should identify all elements of all commercially relevant species in drug, protein, and nucleic acid applications and consider filing new provisional or priority applications to cover previously unappreciated compounds within an already disclosed genus. In Seagen v. Daiichi Sankyo1, the Federal Circuit invalidated claims in a life sciences patent, highlighting the limits of genus-level disclosure to support specific, non-exemplified species. The court found that generic disclosure of a small linker in antibody-drug
Read More
Patent Drafters Beware: Omitted Provisional Language Can Alter Claim Scope
Key Takeaways: The Federal Circuit held that provisional application language omitted from the final patent cannot support broader claim interpretations. Courts may treat changes and omissions between provisional and non-provisional applications as an indication of the applicant’s intended claim scope. Applicants should avoid relying on provisional disclosures to define key terms unless that language is clearly carried forward into the issued patent. In the race to obtain the all-important filing date, patent applicants and inventors rely on provisional applications as a relatively easy and cost-efficient strategy to establish the earliest filing date without needing to develop a full application. The applicants and inventors can then use the ensuing year to supplement and revise the disclosure for a non-provisional or PCT application with all the
Read More