William (Bill) Gaede focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation in the life sciences and medical device industries. Bill serves as lead counsel for a wide range of companies and research institutes and has extensive experience in litigating life science technologies such as antibodies, proteins, small molecules and diagnostics. In addition to his jury trial experience, Bill has argued before the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He further provides risk management guidance on freedom to operate issues.
Bill is head of the Firm’s Global Intellectual Property Practice Group. When he joined the Firm in 2005, his move to McDermott was recognized by American Lawyer, in its feature “Star Laterals of the Year,” as one of the ten most significant lateral moves in the United States.
Bill served previously as temporary deputy district attorney for the City and County of San Francisco. While in Law school, he was elected to the Thurston Society and served on the Hastings Moot Court Board. Bill served as an extern to the Honorable Stanley A. Weigel of the US District Court for the Northern District of California.
Defeated Sanofi’s and Regeneron’s efforts to declare Amgen’s patents, covering a new class of cholesterol lowering anti-PCSK9 antibodies, invalid in this closely-watched competitor case; secured a sweeping jury verdict after a one week jury trial (Amgen Inc. v. Sanofi, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, et al.)
Represented Depomed in protecting its flagship pharmaceutical product Gralise® in Hatch-Waxman litigation initiated by six generic drug companies, five of which withdrew their attempt to market a generic drug of Gralise® or settled on terms that secured the market until January 1, 2024; Depomed and remaining entity, Actavis, went to trial, where a sweeping victory was secured for Depomed, finding infringement on all patents and upholding the validity on all asserted patents (Depomed v. Actavis, et al.)
Defeated Myriad’s 15-year patent-protected monopoly on BRCA gene testing, a process that assesses a woman’s risk of developing breast or ovarian cancer, after successfully defending Ambry Genetics against a 16-patent suit and a preliminary injunction on six of those patents to stop Ambry; resulted in Federal Circuit opinion in In Re Brca1- and Brca2-Based Hereditary Cancer Test Patent Litigation(University of Utah Research Foundation, Myriad Genetics v. Ambry Genetics Corporation)
Enforced Tercica’s licensed patents against Insmed, relating to new IGF-1 products; after a three week jury trial, secured a verdict in favor of Tercica on all asserted patents (Tercica, Inc. and Genentech, Inc. v. Insmed)
Enforced Amgen, Inc.’s patents against F. Hoffman-La Roche, arising out of a pegylated erythropoietin product; after a six week jury trial, secured a verdict in favor of Amgen on all asserted patents (Amgen v. F. Hoffman-La Roche et al.)
The Best Lawyers in America 2007 to 2023, Biotechnology Law, Litigation – Intellectual Property, Litigation – Patent, Patent Law, 2017 Biotechnology Law “Lawyer of the Year” and 2019 Patent Law “Lawyer of the Year”
Daily Journal, including 2015 Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators, 2011 Top 25 Biotech Lawyers in California, and 2009 Top 50 Intellectual Property Litigators
Chambers USA 2015
IAM Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners, 2013 to 2022
Who’s Who Legal: Life Sciences 2021
Who’s Who Legal Global Leader, Life Sciences – Patent Litigation and Patents, 2019
Law360 2014, MVP of the Year in Intellectual Property Law for representation of Ambry Genetics, which significantly expanded the market for hereditary breast and ovarian cancer testing
LMG Life Sciences 2012 to present, Life Science Star
Managing Intellectual Property 2013 to 2021, IP Stars
The Am Law Litigation Daily Litigators of the Week, 2017
US District Court for the Southern District of California
US District Court for the Eastern District of California
US District Court for the Central District of California
US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
Do not send any information or documents that you want to have treated as secret or confidential. Providing information to McDermott via email links on this website or other introductory email communications will not create an attorney-client relationship; will not preclude McDermott from representing any other person or firm in any matter; and will not obligate McDermott to keep confidential the information you provide. McDermott cannot enter into an attorney-client relationship with you until McDermott has determined that doing so will not create a conflict of interest and until you and McDermott have entered into a written agreement or engagement letter that sets forth the terms of our relationship.