• Site Search
  • Lawyer Search

M. Andrew Woodmansee

Partner
San Diego, (858) 720-5167
Drew
  • Print PDF
  • Subscribe to RSS
  • MoFolder

Drew Woodmansee is head of the Litigation Practice Group in the firm’s San Diego office. He has represented clients in the pharmaceutical, biotechnology, medical device, and telecommunications industries in federal courts throughout the U.S. His past and present clients include Palm, Kyocera, General Electric, EchoStar Communications/DISH Network, Dexcom, and Charter Communications.

Mr. Woodmansee has tried patent cases to verdict in both bench and jury trials, and has been involved in patent litigation before the U.S. International Trade Commission. His trial experience includes representing San Diego-based Scantibodies Laboratory in a patent dispute with Nichols Institute Diagnostics, a subsidiary of Quest Diagnostics. The case involved polyclonal antibodies for diagnostic assays used to detect levels of human parathyroid hormone in kidney dialysis patients. The case involved a series of trials, including one bench trial and two jury trials. The jury delivered a defense verdict, finding that the asserted patent was invalid on three different grounds and that one of the two accused products did not infringe. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held the asserted patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 102(b).

Mr. Woodmansee has also appeared in cases before a number of appellate courts, including the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Seventh, Ninth, and Federal Circuits, as well as the California Supreme Court.

Mr. Woodmansee maintains an active pro bono practice with an emphasis on high-profile civil rights and First Amendment cases. Mr. Woodmansee served as lead counsel in Fehrenbach v. Department of the Air Force, et al. (D. Idaho), challenging the Air Force’s efforts to discharge his client, highly decorated Air Force Lt. Col. Victor J. Fehrenbach, under the law known as “Don't Ask, Don’t Tell.” Mr. Woodmansee led a Morrison & Foerster team in filing motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) and a preliminary injunction in August 2010 after learning that Lt. Col. Fehrenbach’s discharge was imminent. The government agreed to entry of a stipulated TRO the next day. On October 1, 2011, Lt. Col. Fehrenbach retired from the Air Force with 20 years of active duty service, an honorable discharge, and full benefits. In recognition of Mr. Woodmansee’s work litigating the constitutionality of "Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell," The National Law Journal named him among the 10 lawyers featured in its 2012 annual "Pro Bono Hot List," and the San Diego County Bar selected the firm to receive its 2012 "Outstanding Public Service by a Law Firm" award.

Mr. Woodmansee also represents the plaintiffs in Barnes-Wallace, et al. v. Boy Scouts of America, et al., 551 F.3d 891 (9th Cir.2008), cert. denied, 2010 WL 1740539 (May 3, 2010). In that case, he won two summary judgment rulings in 2003 and 2004 on behalf of his clients, an agnostic couple and a lesbian couple, as well as their Scouting-age boys. The court ruled that the City of San Diego’s free leases of 18 acres in Balboa Park and one acre in Mission Bay Park to the Boy Scouts violate the Establishment Clause of the U. S. Constitution, as well as the No Aid and No Preference Clauses of the California Constitution. In 2008, the Ninth Circuit held that his clients have standing to pursue their claims. The Supreme Court of the U. S. declined to hear the Boy Scouts’ appeal on the standing issue. Mr. Woodmansee re-argued the appeal on the merits before the Ninth Circuit in June 2011, and a decision is pending.

Mr. Woodmansee is a Lawyer Representative to the U. S. District Court for the Southern District of California. He has served as a faculty member for the National Institute of Trial Advocacy, and he has lectured on patent law at the University of San Diego Law School. In 2010–2011, he was invited to deliver lectures at the law schools of Stanford University, Columbia University, the University of Texas, the University of Pennsylvania, and the University of Notre Dame. He sits on the board of directors of the San Diego Volunteer Lawyer Program, San Diego County’s largest pro bono legal services provider, and he is a member of the firm’s Diversity Strategy Committee and Pro Bono Committee.

Nichols Institute Diagnostics, Inc. v. Scantibodies Clinical Laboratory, Inc.
(Southern District of California). Defended Scantibodies, a San Diego-based manufacturer of diagnostic parathyroid hormone assays, through trial in a patent infringement action brought by Nichols Institute Diagnostics. Following a two-week bench trial and three-week jury trial, 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. (2005)
Dicam, Inc. v. Palm, Inc.
(Western District of Virginia).  Won a motion for summary judgment of noninfringement on behalf of our client, smartphone manufacturer Palm, Inc., as well as an order striking Palm from the case.  Dicam claims to have invented the "camera phone" in 1986. The judge, however, agreed with Palm that Dicam's patent is directed to a camera including a "personal security device" feature that can be used to capture an image and transmit the image, along with information identifying the device's owner to a remote location, with the push of a single button. Having agreed with Palm about the scope of the patent, the Court then held that Palm devices do not infringe. (2010)
Abbott Diabetes Care v. DexCom, Inc.
Won a motion to dismiss the complaint due to prematurity, and a motion to stay the case due to pending PTO reexaminations, on behalf of DexCom, Inc., a San Diego developer and manufacturer of a device for the continuous monitoring of glucose in people with diabetes, in a patent infringement case involving glucose monitoring patents. Seven months before DexCom's continuous glucose monitoring device received FDA approval, Abbott sued DexCom, and the DexCom litigation team convinced the court that it lacked jurisdiction to hear the dispute when filed. The DexCom patent prosecution team filed requests for reexamination of each asserted patent, all of which were granted. The DexCom litigation team then persuaded the court to stay the case pending reexamination and later convinced the court to strike an amended complaint adding more patents.
Loading...
Loading...