Media Mentions
2011
“Isis Calls Out Santaris Over Drug Development Deals”
Law360, September 23, 2011
William Gaede III, Shane Smith, Jason Strabo and Derek Meyer represent drug developer Isis Pharmaceuticals in a patent infringement lawsuit that accuses a competitor of exploiting the antisense technology pioneered and patented by Isis through repeatedly selling and offering it for sale to other pharmaceutical companies.
William Gaede, Derek J. Meyer, Shane G. Smith Ph.D., Jason D. Strabo, Intellectual Property, Trial
“Shire Patent Suit Over Generic Intuniv Survives”
Law360, August 29, 2011
William Gaede III, Joseph Robinson and Heather Ettinger, representing Irish drugmaker Shire PLC as plaintiff in a patent infringement lawsuit against two U.S. companies over an attention deficit hyperactivity disorder drug, successfully secured a California federal judge’s denial of the defendants’ attempt to dismiss the suit.
Heather Morehouse Ettinger Ph.D., William Gaede, Joseph R. Robinson, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation
“25 Leading Biotech Lawyers in California”
The Daily Journal, August 10, 2011
William Gaede was singled out as a top California biotech attorney, illustrated by his current work as lead counsel in the Northern District of California on two high-profile cases involving the Hatch-Waxman Act and as author of an amicus brief for a positive Federal Circuit ruling on the patentability of DNA sequencing in diagnostics. As Mr. Gaede explained his litigation philosophy, “Life sciences companies, in particular, need strong patents to protect their long-term investments, [because] it takes years to research, develop and get the approval of biological products.”
William Gaede, Intellectual Property
2010
William Gaede was quoted in a March 30 Law360 story about the potential negative impact on the biotechnology industry of a federal judge’s ruling that invalidated patents on two genes linked to breast and ovarian cancer because they involve DNA as it is found in nature. Mr. Gaede, who filed an amicus brief in the case for a coalition of diagnostic companies, expressed concern about the ruling’s impact on life sciences investors. “The incentive to invest in diagnostic and biologic companies rests on certainty in patent law,” he said. “This decision will create uncertainty in investors’ minds as to whether the business models of certain companies are sustainable under the patent laws.”
William Gaede, Intellectual Property, Life Sciences & Medical Products, Life Sciences - IP
2009
William Gaede and Paul Devinsky were both quoted in Law360 on June 1 concerning the U.S. Supreme Court's decision to hear an appeal of In re: Bilski, in which the Federal Circuit Court limited business method patentability. "The position the Supreme Court will have to address," Mr. Gaede said, "is whether the test for patentability of processes or methods defined by the Federal Circuit is too rigid a reading of Supreme Court precedent that could result in stifling innovation in emerging industries." Mr. Devinsky noted that a key question was whether the Court would let the Federal Circuit "down easy" or deliver a strong reversal, adding: "The patent world will soon learn just how high a threshold Section 101 presents to patent-eligible subject matter."
Paul Devinsky, William Gaede, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Patent Prosecution
William Gaede was quoted in the March 27 BNA Life Sciences Law and Industry regarding the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals decision in Tafas v. Doll. The decision upheld several new Patent & Trademark Office rules intended to limit the number of an applicant's requests for continued examinations and the number of independent claims. Mr. Gaede observed that Tafas struck down Rule 78, which limited continuations to two, but upheld Rule 75, which limits independent claims and total claims to five and 25 respectively. "The limits on the number of claims and the practical effect that subject matter will have to be pursued in continuations to obtain comprehensive coverage will delay the ability of an entity to obtain comprehensive coverage," he said, and because of that delay "a cloud could be put on the financing efforts" to monetize or license patents, since investors cannot be confident a patent will be granted.
William Gaede, Intellectual Property, Life Sciences & Medical Products, Life Sciences - IP, Life Sciences - Medical Products & Technology
William Gaede was quoted in a detailed BNA Life Sciences Law and Industry March 27 report on the impact that bills introduced in Congress to "reform" the patent law system could have on life science/medical device companies. He focused specifically on the reasonable royalty measure of damage provisions for infringement in the pending S. 515, saying that they "put a level of rigidity into the analysis that ultimately may fail to capture the value of patent contributions to the overall value of infringing product or process." He noted that a patented composition or process "may be a small component of a product, but without that composition or process the product may not be operable, have sufficient value, or even be able to be produced," and that by not giving them due weight S. 515 may “potentially encourage infringement."
William Gaede, Intellectual Property, Life Sciences & Medical Products, Life Sciences - IP
2008
William Gaede is quoted in The Recorder on March 23 (as presented on Law.com), speaking about the patent infringement litigation impact of the Federal Circuit's In re Bilski decision. Bilski held that methods are not patentable unless they are tied to a machine or can transform an article. Concerning the use of the decision by defendants in infringement claims, Mr. Gaede says: "Is Bilski the killer defense? I think the answer is no, because you may face other claims."
William Gaede, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Life Sciences - IP
2007
William Gaede was quoted in an October 23 article published by IP Law360 regarding a federal jury's ruling that Amgen Inc.'s patents were infringed by Roche Holding AG's generic drug Mircera. Mr. Gaede represented Amgen in the case along with others from McDermott. "We're thrilled with it…It's a terrific victory for Amgen," Mr. Gaede commented.
William Gaede, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Life Sciences & Medical Products, Life Sciences & Medical Products Litigation, Life Sciences - IP
Terrence P. McMahon and William Gaede were featured in the February 2007 issue of IP Law & Business in a two-page article, "Trial Tips: In the race to develop a new drug for juvenile growth disorder, did Insmed rely on Genentech's patents?" This article discusses the closely watched biotechnology case, Genentech Inc. et al. v. Insmed Incorporated et al., the history of the patent battle for co-plaintiffs Genentech and Tercica, and the trial strategies employed by the McDermott team for Firm client Tercica.
William Gaede, Terrence P. McMahon, Intellectual Property, IP Litigation, Trial
2006
William Gaede was recognized in American Lawyer's (February 2006) "Star Laterals of the Year" as one of the 10 most significant lateral moves in the United States in 2005.
William Gaede, Intellectual Property, Life Sciences & Medical Products
