Will represents individuals and companies nationwide across a diverse set of industries, including: entertainment, medical device, agribusiness, manufacturing, crypto blockchain and Web3 technologies, and financial services. He has significant experience managing complex intellectual property matters through trial. He has directed several complex patent, copyright, and trademark matters to favorable resolution, providing strategic guidance at every step along the way — from acquisition through enforcement.
Will brings an old school service mentality to his cutting-edge practice, working closely with clients to identify, develop, and implement business-driven intellectual property strategies — to 'see around the corner'.
Will’s approach to practice has been lauded by his peers. He has been recognized as a “Top Trademark Professional” by World Trademark Review, who cite his peers as saying he is an “excellent litigator, known for his attention to detail and powerful argument skills and also for his commitment to civility and commonsense.” He has been recognized as a Super Lawyers “rising star” every year since he has been eligible for the recognition. Will provides strategic guidance across the intellectual property landscape, recently providing counsel on a first-of-its-kind Name, Image, and Likeness deal.
Will has represented and advised clients in a wide variety of areas, including:
- Complex patent matters
- Trade secret
- Copyright and trademark
- Brand management
- Trademark acquisition, maintenance, and enforcement
- Name, Image, and Likeness (“NIL”)
- Crypto blockchain technologies
Genovis AB v. Promega
Defended Promega in a patent infringement suit in the Western District of Wisconsin. The case involved a certain sequence for proteases. Following the filing of a Rule 11 motion in conjunction with summary judgment filings, the case settled confidentially.
MTD Products Co. v. The Toro Company
Represented Toro in a competitor suit in Ohio involving three mechanical transmission linkage patents for zero-turn-radius vehicles. Venued in the Northern District of Ohio. Invalidated the original two patents through IPR and were attacking the recently issued third through reexam when plaintiff withdrew its preliminary injunction motion and ultimately settled on confidential terms.
Club Car v. Yamaha
Represented Club Car in a case filed in Augusta GA, asserting patents covering the management of golf cart usage based on GPS technology and golf cart control. The patents allowed golf course owners to limit speed by the club house or going down a steep hill, and to keep people from driving on the greens or other sensitive areas. After defeating four IPRs the case settled confidentially and Yamaha modified its Yamatrax product offering.
Affinity Labs v. Ford, GM, and many other auto manufacturers; and Samsung, HTC and other cell phone manufacturers:
Represented Russel White and his company Affinity Labs asserting his numerous patents on technology for connecting personal wired or wireless devices to vehicles and other devices for audio or video playback. Over many years, jurisdictions, and IPRs, including a courthouse steps settlement with Ford, all cases were resolved confidentially.
IWCO Direct Holdings Inc. v. Nahan Printing, Inc.
Represented leading provider of direct marketing services in action against former executives and their new employer alleging misappropriation of trade secrets, breaches of contract and breaches of duties of loyalty. Case settled on confidential terms after hearing on cross-motions for summary judgment.
Covidien v. Esch
Trial counsel in which a federal jury in the District of Massachusetts held the defendant, a former Covidien employee, liable for breaching his contracts with Covidien by disclosing and using confidential information to start his own company.
Virtual Radiologic Corp. v. Tandem
Counsel for Virtual Radiologic Corporation and Nighthawk Radiology Services in Virtual Radiologic Corp. v. Tandem, an action for patent infringement, copyright infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and interference with contract in the District Court for the District of Arizona. Robins Kaplan obtained injunctions in favor of our client on September 19, 2014, including a finding of patent infringement. The case involved our clients’ teleradiology technology and confidential business information.
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.