Source: https://www.fr.com/william-r-woodford/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 04:10:53+00:00

Document:
Mr. Woodford is a trial lawyer who specializes in complex patent litigation on behalf of patent owners. Whether working as lead trial counsel, arguing appeals, writing briefs, or conducting due diligence, Mr. Woodford handles all aspects of litigation. He also has experience working in many different technology areas, including electronics, telecommunications, medical devices, and life sciences.
Mr. Woodford’s approach to litigation involves developing a deep understanding of the case at the outset. He then uses that analysis to create the optimal case strategy and streamline discovery to focus on the issues that will have the greatest impact on the outcome of the case. Using this approach, Mr. Woodford has minimized the cost of litigation for his clients while generating positive outcomes, often short of trial.
Mr. Woodford is an elected member of the Fish’s finance committee. He was recently recognized as an Attorney of the Year by Minnesota Lawyer.
GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva Pharmaceuticals (D. Del.) – Trial counsel for GlaxoSmithKline in a patent case involving methods of treating heart failure patients with carvedilol. In June 2017, a jury found Teva liable for willful infringement, found GSK’s patent valid, and awarded $235 million in damages.
Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Pulse Electronics (D. Nev.) – Co-lead trial counsel for Halo Electronics, a small family business, in a long-running patent case involving packages for surface-mount transformers. A jury found Pulse liable for willful infringement on three Halo patents, confirmed the patents’ validity, and awarded damages. The court later awarded Halo a permanent injunction against Pulse. Lead appellate counsel for Halo at the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the jury verdict of liability but set aside the willful infringement finding, reported at 769 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Subsequently convinced the Supreme Court to vacate the Federal Circuit’s treatment of willfulness and set a new standard for enhanced damages in patent cases, reported at 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016).
University of Minnesota v. AT&T Mobility et al. (D. Minn.) — Representing the University of Minnesota against Verizon, AT&T, Sprint, and T-Mobile for the alleged infringement of five patents that cover systems and methods that improve the reliability and speed of cellular communications.
MIT & Repligen Corp. v. ImClone Systems (D. Mass.) – Counsel for plaintiffs against ImClone Systems in patent case relating to the use of cellular enhancers to increase protein expression in cells. Obtained a $65 million settlement for MIT on the eve of trial.
Netcraft Corp. v. AT&T Mobility et al. (D. Del.) – Co-lead counsel for Netcraft in a patent case involving third-party payment systems. Successfully settled the case with all defendants after arguing and obtaining favorable claim construction and pre-trial rulings. The resulting licenses totaled nearly $40 million.
NUtech Ventures (University of Nebraska) v. Syngenta Seeds et al. (D. Neb., J. Smith Camp) – Lead counsel for NUtech in a patent case involving bio-engineered corn used in the production of ethanol. Obtained favorable claim construction rulings on all disputed terms and successfully settled the case.
Bel Fuse, Inc. v. Halo Electronics, Inc. (D. N.J.) – Lead trial counsel for defendant Halo Electronics in a patent case involving Ethernet connectors. After an invalidity trial that resulted in a hung jury, Halo obtained a favorable cross-license for its patents in a co-pending case.
Hyperphrase Technologies v. Google, Inc. (W.D. Wis.) – Counsel for Google in a patent case involving multiple patents relating to data storage and retrieval systems. Obtained a summary judgment of non-infringement that was later affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Amazin’ Raisins Int’l v. Ocean Spray Cranberries (D. Mass.) – Co-lead counsel for defendant Ocean Spray in a patent infringement action involving a method of making food products. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement that was later affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Tektronix v. LeCroy Corp. (D. Oregon) – Counsel for LeCroy in a multiple patent case involving hardware and software for digital oscilloscopes. Responsible for summary judgment of non-infringement on Tektronix’s key patent that resulted in a favorable settlement for LeCroy.
Bruno Independent Living Aids v. Acorn Mobility and Acorn Stairlifts (W.D. Wis.) – Counsel for Acorn Mobility in a patent infringement case involving mobility equipment. Obtained summary judgment of invalidity and inequitable conduct. The court also declared the case “exceptional,” and awarded $400,000 in attorney fees to Acorn. The Federal Circuit later affirmed the inequitable conduct finding and fee award.
St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital – Obtained numerous licenses to patent portfolios covering nucleic acids, proteins, polypeptides, and antibodies used to develop ALK and JAK inhibitors.
Dana-Farber Cancer Institute – Obtained more than a dozen licenses on a patent portfolio covering PGC-1 nucleic acid, protein and antibody compositions, as well as methods for detecting PGC-1 in biological samples.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.