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

• 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.
• 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.
• 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.