M. Andrew Woodmansee is a partner in the San Diego office of Morrison & Foerster LLP. Mr. Woodmansee is an intellectual property litigator focusing primarily on patent litigation and patent licensing disputes. He has litigated patent infringement matters involving technology related to the semiconductor, biotechnology, medical device, and telecommunications industries. He also has litigated cases dealing with computer hardware and software, as well as wireless devices. Mr. Woodmansee has represented a wide-range of clients in patent litigation matters, including EchoStar Communications, Dexcom, Inc., Charter Communications, Target Corporation and Comcast Corporation. Mr. Woodmansee also litigates cases involving First Amendment challenges, particularly with respect to the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses.

Mr. Woodmansee received his B.A. from the University of Notre Dame in 1993 and his J.D. degree from Notre Dame Law School in 1996. While in law school, he was a White Scholar in the University’s Thomas J. White Center for Law and Government and served as Executive Editor of the Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics & Public Policy. Mr. Woodmansee is a native of Connecticut. He moved to San Diego from Chicago where he practiced for several years.

He has tried patent cases in both bench and jury trials, and has been involved in patent infringement litigation before the United States International Trade Commission. Mr. Woodmansee also has appeared in cases before a number of appellate courts, including the United States Courts of Appeals for the Seventh, Ninth, and Federal Circuits, as well as the California Supreme Court. In addition to his patent litigation practice, he also has extensive experience litigating trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement, as well as trade secret matters.

A sample of Mr. Woodmansee's patent litigation experience since joining the firm in 2000 includes:

• Abbott Diabetes Care v. DexCom, Inc. Mr. Woodmansee represents DexCom in a patent infringement case pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Seven months before DexCom’s continuous glucose monitoring device received FDA approval, Abbott filed a complaint asserting four patents. The court granted DexCom’s motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that Abbott’s complaint was premature. With respect to any remaining claims, the court granted DexCom’s motion to stay the case pending reexamination of the asserted patents by the Patent and Trademark Office.
• The Texas A&M University System v. General Electric Company and SABIC Innovative Plastics US LLC. Mr. Woodmansee represents GE and SABIC in this patent suit brought by Texas A&M in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Flashpoint Technology, Inc. v. Kyocera Wireless Corporation. Mr. Woodmansee represents Kyocera Wireless Corporation in this patent infringement case pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
• Dicam, Inc. v. United States Cellular and Kyocera Wireless Corporation. Mr. Woodmansee represents Kyocera Wireless Corporation in this patent infringement case pending in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.
• St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants v. Kyocera Wireless Corporation. Mr. Woodmansee represents Kyocera Wireless Corporation in this patent infringement case pending in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware.
• Broadcast Innovation v. Charter Communications, Inc., Mr. Woodmansee represents charter Communications in a patent infringement case pending in the District of Colorado. The Patent Trademark Office recently ordered reexamination of the plaintiff’s “datacasting” patent, and the District Court granted Charter’s motion to stay the case less than three months prior to the start of trial.
• Nichols Institute Diagnostics, Inc. v. Scantibodies Clinical Laboratory, Inc. Mr. Woodmansee represented Scantibodies in this patent suit brought by Nichols in the Southern District of California, involving immunoassays to detect levels of parathyroid hormone (PTH) in human blood. Nichols, the largest producer of PTH test kits in the United States, sued Scantibodies based on its licensed rights to the ’790 patent. Following a two-week bench trial and three-week jury trial in the summer of 2005, the patent was invalidated on three grounds (best mode, enablement and written description), and one of the Scantibodies’ products was found not to infringe. On appeal following the district court's ruling on post-trial motions, the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that the asserted patent is anticipated by prior art and therefore invalid.
• In re Certain Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof. U.S. International Trade Commission, No. 337-TA-454. In what has been called the biggest-ever patent case in the International Trade Commission, the firm successfully defended EchoStar. Gemstar-TV Guide International claimed that EchoStar, Scientific-Atlanta, Inc., and Pioneer imported set-top boxes that infringed four United States patents. Following a three week trial, the Administrative Law Judge found all patents not infringed, and one patent invalid and unenforceable. The full Commission adopted the ALJ's findings.
• Ronald A. Katz Technology L.P. vs. American Electric Power et al. (USDC., E.D.Tex.): Mr. Woodmansee represented Target Corporation in a patent case alleging infringement of a large portfolio of interactive telephone/computer interface patents. On behalf of our client, Target, we obtained an order from the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation consolidating the case with over twenty other actions involving the same plaintiff and family of patents. The consolidated cases were transferred to the Central District of California, and the case settled favorably as to Target.
• Inverness Medical Switzerland and Unipath Diagnostics v. Acon Laboratories. Mr. Woodmansee represented Acon in two patent suits brought by Inverness alleging that Acon's test kits infringe a total of nine patents. Following Acon’s successful efforts to avoid an injunction, the case settled favorably, with Inverness agreeing to purchase Acon.
• Caliper Technologies Corp. v. Aclara Biosciences, Inc. Mr. Woodmansee was counsel to Aclara, a manufacturer of micro fluidic devices, in patent litigation filed in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. The matter was settled prior to trial following a favorable claim construction ruling.
• Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. v. Dynamic Details, Inc., et al. Mr. Woodmansee represented ESI, a Portland-based manufacturer of laser systems for the semiconductor industry, sued defendants for patent infringement in the Central District of California. A favorable settlement was reached following a decision in favor of ESI at the Federal Circuit.
• Broadcast Innovation v. EchoStar Communications Corp. Mr. Woodmansee was a member of the team defending EchoStar in a patent infringement case filed in the District Court for Colorado with respect to data broadcasting and conditional access patents. The Court declared the conditional access patent invalid after ruling in EchoStar's favor that the asserted claims were indefinite under 35 U.S.C. Section 112.

Mr. Woodmansee maintains an active First Amendment practice, serving as trial and appellate counsel in several high-profile Civil Rights and First Amendment cases, including:

• Since 2001, Mr. Woodmansee has represented the plaintiffs in Barnes-Wallace, et al. v. Boy Scouts of America, et al. (S.D. Cal. 2003). In that case, Judge Napoleon A. Jones, Jr. ruled that the City of San Diego's free lease of 18 acres in Balboa Park to the Boy Scouts of America-Desert Pacific Council violates the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, as well as the No Aid and No Preference Clauses of the California Constitution. In a separate ruling issued on April 9, 2004, the court declared a second lease between the City and the Boy Scouts to be unconstitutional on the same grounds. The case is currently on appeal to the Ninth Circuit.
• Mr. Woodmansee also authored a brief on behalf of the California ACLU chapters as amici curiae in the California Supreme Court in Evans v. City of Berkeley, supporting Berkeley's decision to withdraw its subsidy of the "Sea Scouts" in light of the organization's refusal to provide written assurances that it would abide by the City's nondiscrimination policies.
• Mr. Woodmansee currently represents the defendants in Barlow v. Superior Court of California. In that case, the plaintiffs (two court employees) are challenging the Superior Court’s policy governing the use of courthouse facilities for non-court business. The plaintiffs allege that the application of the Court’s policy (denying plaintiffs permission to hold Bible study in a courtroom during the lunch hour) violates their First Amendment Rights to free speech and free exercise of religion. The case is pending in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

Mr. Woodmansee is a Barrister in the Louis M. Welsh American Inn of Court, he has taught courses in intellectual property as an adjunct professor, and he has served as a faculty member for the National Institute of Trial Advocacy (NITA). He is admitted to practice before the state and federal courts of both California and Illinois. He is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh, Ninth, and Federal Circuits.

Representative speaking engagements for Mr. Woodmansee include:

• “Beyond Boy Scouts v. Dale: Re-examining Relationships Between Government and Private Discriminatory Organizations.” Fordham Law School, New York, NY (October 2003).
• “2005 Patent Law Highlights,” Morrison & Foerster, San Diego, CA (January 2006).
• “2005 Patent Law Highlights,” San Diego Chapter Association of Corporate Counsel (February 2006).
• “2006 Patent Law Highlights,” Morrison & Foerster, San Diego, CA (February 2007).
• “A Day In The Life of an E-Discovery Case.” San Diego County Bar Center (with Hon. Anthony J. Battaglia and Michael R. Arkfeld). (May 2007).
• “Are There Exceptions to the Rule? The Clash of Non-Discrimination Rules and Belief-Based Discrimination.” Chicago Hilton Hotel, Chicago, IL (September 2007).
• “Patent Reform: The Status of Pending Legislation In Both the House and the Senate.” San Diego Chapter Association of Corporate Counsel. (November 2007).
• “IP Trends and Strategies In the Video Game Industry.” Law Seminars International Gamer Technology Law Conference. Beverly Hills Hotel, Los Angeles, CA. (March 2008).