William L. Anthony Jr.

Mr. Anthony, a partner in the Silicon Valley office, is a member of the firm's Intellectual Property Group.  He focuses his practice exclusively on technology and high-stakes patent litigation.  Mr. Anthony has tried a substantial number of cases, to both jury and bench, involving semiconductors, computers, and biotechnology.  He also has appeared numerous times before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Mr. Anthony has served on the Santa Clara University School of Law Dean’s High Tech Advisory Council since 2001.

The following is a sample of his notable cases:

• Compal Electronics.  Mr. Anthony led a team that received an order granting summary judgment on behalf of Compal on four patents in LG Electronics Inc. v. Compal Electronics, Inc.  Mr. Anthony represented Compal Electronics and its subsidiaries.  The plaintiff, LG Electronics, had asserted six patents (two previously dismissed) against Compal and four other Taiwanese notebook computer manufacturers arguing that the defendants' notebooks infringed LGE's patents.  LGE is the consumer electronics division of the huge South Korea conglomerate, LG.  Compal is one of the largest notebook OEM companies in the world.  LGE originally sought both cash damages and an injunction to prevent Compal Electronics from continuing to import notebook products into the U.S.  
• Cisco Systems, Inc.  A trial team led by Mr. Anthony obtained summary judgment for client Cisco Systems Inc. in a patent ruling concerning Cisco’s Internet Protocol (IP) telephony products against a claim of patent infringement brought by Chrimar Systems, Inc.  In Chrimar Systems, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., the dispute involves "in-line power" for IP telephony that permits devices such as telephones to be powered remotely over computer networks.
• Oracle Corp.  Mr. Anthony is defending Oracle Corp. in a patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas.  The case involves two patents relating to certain aspects of database systems.
• Microsoft Corp.  In InterTrust Technologies v. Microsoft Corporation, Mr. Anthony represented Microsoft in this matter involving more than 11 patents claiming to provide Digital Rights Management Software.  Described by Forbes Magazine as one of the most complex patent cases in U.S. history, this matter lasted over three years.
• Inktomi Corporation, a Yahoo! Company.  Mr. Anthony led a trial team that defended both Inktomi Corporation and Yahoo! in Teknowledge Corporation v. Akamai Technologies, Inc., et al., a multidefendant patent infringement case that involves Inktomi’s Web caching technology.  The case settled shortly after the Orrick team obtained key summary judgment rulings in favor of Yahoo! holding that two of the claims at issue were non-infringed, and one was invalid as non-enabled.
• Foundry Networks.  Mr. Anthony led a trial team representing the defendant, Foundry Networks, in Nortel Networks v. Foundry Networks.  This six-patent case involved computer networking technologies.  The case settled after an inequitable conduct bench trial and two weeks of a jury trial in the District of Massachusetts.
• Hon-Hai Precision Industry Co., Ltd.  Mr. Anthony and a trial team represented Foxconn Corporation in a patent infringement suit in the Northern District of California involving seven patents.  Foxconn, a subsidiary of Hon-Hai Precision Industry Co., is Taiwan’s largest manufacturer of connectors for use in PCs, and a leading global manufacturer of connectors and cable assemblies.
• Nanya Technology Corp.  Mr. Anthony is part of a trial team that represents Nanya Technologies Corporation in Renesas Technology v. Nanya.  This complex patent case involving more than seven patents relating to design features of DRAM semiconductors.
• Wistron Corp.  Mr. Anthony was part of the Wistron team in a patent infringement suit based upon satellite dish technology in the Central District of California.
• Unipoint Corp.  Mr. Anthony represented Unipoint in a patent infringement suit in the Southern District of Indiana involving aftermarket auto parts.
• Affymetrix.  Mr. Anthony represented Affymetrix in a variety of matters both defending the client’s GeneChip® product from patent infringement allegations of others and enforcing its GeneChip® patents against infringers.  These proceedings occurred in a variety of locations and forums, including the district courts of San Francisco and San Jose, the district court of Wilmington, Delaware, the United States Patent and Trademark Office, and the United Kingdom.
• Aureal Semiconductor.  In Creative Technology v. Aureal Semiconductor, a patent trial, Mr. Anthony's efforts resulted in a jury verdict of non-infringement of Aureal’s core technology, the 3D audio sound card.  This case was selected as one of the “Top 10 Defense Verdicts of 1999” by The National Law Journal.
• Gemstar.  Mr. Anthony prosecuted patent litigation concerning an interactive on-screen television guide against United Video and TV Guide Online.  Before a trial victory, United Video attempted to resolve the case by acquiring Gemstar.  In an interesting turn of events and because of the trial victory, Gemstar acquired United Video and TV Guide Online.
• McDougal Engineering.  Mr. Anthony has represented McDougal Engineering in litigation and licensing, and has established a licensing program in which nearly every significant automobile company in the world has taken a license under McDougal Engineering’s patents.
• Megadyne Medical Products.  In Megadyne Medical Products, Inc. v. Aspen Laboratories, Inc., Mr. Anthony represented Megadyne in a jury patent trial against Aspen Laboratories, a subsidiary of ConMed Corporation.  The patent related to teflon-coated electrosurgical blades.  The jury returned a verdict in favor of Megadyne, finding the patent both valid and infringed.  In addition, the jury found a reasonable royalty in excess of 70 percent of gross sales price.  Those damages were doubled in view of a further jury finding that the infringement was willful.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the jury's verdict.
• Diasonics.  Mr. Anthony represented the plaintiff, Diasonics, in Diasonics v. Acuson Corp., a jury trial on two patents relating to phased array ultrasound imagers.  A verdict in favor of Diasonics was returned, but was in part set aside by the trial judge as going beyond the evidence.  After the court identified only a narrow issue for retrial, a ruling favorable to Diasonics was obtained and the case settled.
• ABTOX.  Mr. Anthony represented a start-up company, ABTOX in cross-complaints with Johnson & Johnson involving plasma sterile.  The trial court granted summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of ABTOX on the two patents being asserted by Johnson & Johnson.  The summary judgment was affirmed in part and reversed in part on appeal.  Subsequently, summary judgment was again granted in favor of our client in ABTOX v. Johnson & Johnson.  In MDT Corporation v. ABTOX, Inc., Mr. Anthony defended ABTOX against patent infringement charges on two patents relating to plasma sterilizers.  After motions for summary judgment and a mini-trial, the court held the patents not infringed and dismissed the case.  The Federal Circuit affirmed on appeal.
• Key Tronic Corp.  In Key Tronic Corporation v. Burroughs Corporation, Mr. Anthony filed a declaratory judgment action on behalf of Key Tronic, after Burroughs (now Unisys Corp.) noticed them with infringement on a patent relating to electronic keyboards.  At the time, Key Tronic was the largest independent producer of keyboards in the world.  Essentially, all of their production was alleged to be infringing.  The patent-in-suit was in a reissue proceeding in the Patent Office during the discovery phase of the case.  All of the prior art uncovered during discovery and the key deposition transcripts were given to the Patent Office Examiner.  Shortly before trial, the examiner issued an opinion that the prior art did not render the keyboards unpatentable and reissued the patent.  After a trial exceeding 50 days, the judge disagreed with the examiner, and Key Tronic prevailed on all issues.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the Trial Court's decision.  This may be the only case affirmed by the Federal Circuit where the patent was held invalid over the identical art considered by the examiner.
• American Sign and Indicator Corp. Mr. Anthony defended American Sign in a series of cases in the Federal District Court, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Federal Circuit against patent infringement allegations of Stewart-Warner on computer-controlled scoreboards which displayed moving video images.  The American Sign case was won when a key witness for Stewart-Warner changed his testimony on the stand during Mr. Anthony’s cross-examination of the witness.  That dramatic change in testimony later resulted in the court reversing its prior ruling in favor of Stewart-Warner.  There were two appeals and two trials in this case.  On the first appeal, to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, the District Court was sustained with respect to one patent and reversed with respect to a second.  A new trial was held with respect to the second patent and the client again prevailed at trial.  That second trial was appealed to the Federal Circuit, which sustained the trial court outcome.

Before joining Orrick, Mr. Anthony was a partner at Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP, where he headed the intellectual property practice and served as a lead patent litigator.  Before that, he was with Townsend, Townsend & Crew, where he was a partner from 1983 to 1990.

Admitted in

• California
• Connecticut
• Michigan
• United States Patent and Trademark Office

Memberships

• State Bar of California

Multimedia