BioEducationAdmissionsRecognitionPatent Litigation (Plaintiffs)Patent Litigation (Defendants)Patent Licensing

William Woodford is a trial lawyer who specializes in complex intellectual property litigation. He is known for his ability to break down complicated legal theories and technologies in a clear, compelling way for judges and juries. William has successfully handled cases in district courts throughout the country and led numerous appeals, including a landmark case before the United States Supreme Court that set the standard for enhanced damages in patent cases. Other recent successes include a $31 million jury verdict as lead trial counsel in a patent infringement case involving advanced tire pressure monitoring systems. He was also part of the trial team that recently obtained a $235 million jury verdict for infringement of a patent involving methods of treating heart failure patients.

William leverages his litigation experience to provide cutting-edge counseling for clients. His engineering background and thirst for knowledge has led to a proficiency across a wide range of technologies in the physical and life sciences. Over the past two decades, he has evaluated infringement allegations on thousands of patents, enabling him to efficiently distill complicated matters to their key issues--a necessity for developing winning legal strategies. William has helped clients obtain dozens of patent licenses, successfully navigate inter partes reviews, and protect inventions around the world.

Before founding Avantech Law in 2021, William spent nearly 20 years handling intellectual property and technology litigation at Fish & Richardson P.C., one of the nation’s leading IP firms. He co-founded Fish’s alternative fee practice and served as an elected member of the firm’s finance committee for almost a decade. He continues to be a pioneer in designing business-centric alternative pricing structures and optimizing the delivery of legal services to give clients the highest value for their legal spend. Avantech provides William the platform to continue delivering these benefits to clients and lead further innovation in the legal industry.

William has been recognized by numerous legal publications for his work. He has been named to the Best Lawyers in America and Best Lawyers in Minnesota lists, and also named a Midwest Trailblazer by American Lawyer. William has also received the Attorney of the Year award from Minnesota Lawyer and the “Case of the Year'' award from Managing Intellectual Property.

J.D. University of Minnesota Law School (2002)

B.S. Electrical Engineering, Marquette University (1998)

State Admissions

  • Minnesota
  • Massachusetts

Federal Admissions

  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Colorado
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin

  • The Best Lawyers in America© List (2021-22)
  • Best Lawyers in Minnesota List (2021)
  • “Midwest Trailblazer” by The American Lawyer (2021)
  • “Law360‘s Weekly Verdict: Legal Lions & Lambs” (February 20, 2020)
  • “Case of the Year” by Managing Intellectual Property (2017)
  • “Attorney of the Year” by Minnesota Lawyer (2016)
  • Minnesota Super Lawyer (2014-2015)
  • Minnesota Super Lawyers “Rising Star” (2012-2013)
  • Minnesota “Up & Coming Lawyer” (2012)

Wasica Finance GMBH v. Schrader Int’l et al.

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

William served as lead trial counsel for Wasica in a patent case involving tire pressure monitoring systems. A jury found Schrader liable for both induced and contributory infringement, and awarded Wasica $31.2 million in damages. The jury win ultimately led to a $43 million judgment. He successfully obtained summary judgment of IPR estoppel on invalidity grounds based on a physical product, which was the first ruling of its kind. The case settled after post-trial rulings.

GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva Pharmaceuticals

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

William led the damages team and served as 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

U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada | U.S. Federal Circuit Court 769 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014) | U.S. Supreme Court 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016)

William served as 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. William went on to serve as lead appellate counsel for Halo at the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the jury verdict of liability but set aside the willful infringement finding. He 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.

University of Minnesota v. AT&T Mobility et al.

U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota

William represents the University of Minnesota against several mobile carriers and base station manufacturers for the alleged infringement of five patents that cover systems and methods that improve the reliability and speed of their 5G and LTE networks. He successfully prevailed on seven IPRs by convincing the PTAB that the petitions were time-barred on the basis of privity between the petitioner and the original group of defendants in the litigation.

MIT & Repligen Corp. v. ImClone Systems

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

William handled the damages case on behalf of plaintiffs against ImClone Systems in a patent case relating to the use of cellular enhancers to increase protein expression in cells. The team obtained a $65 million settlement for MIT on the eve of trial.

Netcraft Corp. v. AT&T Mobility et al.

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware

William served as co-lead counsel for Netcraft in a patent case involving third-party payment systems. He 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.

U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska

William served as lead counsel for NUtech in a patent case involving bio-engineered corn used in the production of ethanol. He obtained favorable claim construction rulings on all disputed terms, which led to the successful settlement of the case.

Bel Fuse, Inc. v. Halo Electronics, Inc.

U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey

William served as lead trial counsel for defendant Halo Electronics in a patent case involving Ethernet connectors. After an invalidity trial on obviousness resulted in a hung jury, Halo obtained a favorable cross-license for its patents in another pending case.

Amazin’ Raisins Int’l v. Ocean Spray Cranberries

U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts | U.S. Federal Circuit Court

William acted as co-lead counsel for defendant Ocean Spray in a patent infringement action involving a method of making food products. He obtained summary judgment of non-infringement that was later affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

Tektronix v. LeCroy Corp.

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon

William represented LeCroy in a multiple patent case involving hardware and software for digital oscilloscopes. He was responsible for a summary judgment of non-infringement on Tektronix’s key patent that resulted in a favorable settlement for LeCroy.

St. Jude Children’s Research Hospital

William obtained numerous licenses to patent portfolios covering nucleic acids, proteins, polypeptides, and antibodies used to develop ALK and JAK inhibitors.

Dana-Farber Cancer Institute

William 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.