|
William C. Rooklidge
4 Park Plaza
Suite 1700
Irvine, CA 92614
+1 949.759.3904
+1 949.721.6910 (Fax)
 Download vCard
|
Co-Chair, Intellectual Property
William Rooklidge is Co-Chair of the Intellectual Property practice at Howrey. He specializes in intellectual property litigation and related counseling. Although his practice focuses on patent infringement litigation, representing clients in a wide variety of industries, including communications, diesel engines, software, electronics, sporting goods and financial services, he also has considerable experience in trademark litigation, enforcement of intellectual property through US Customs and Border Protection, and mediation and arbitration of intellectual property disputes. He has extensive trial and appellate experience, including arguing many cases at the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
A leader in both the local and national bar, Mr. Rooklidge served as President of both the Orange County Patent Law Association and the American Intellectual Property Law Association. He has published and spoken extensively on patent issues, and has written amicus briefs for both AIPLA and the American Bar Association. Mr. Rooklidge has been a Registered Professional Engineer and designed manufacturing machinery.
Mr. Rooklidge has been repeatedly recognized as one of Southern California's "Super Lawyers" by Law & Politics magazine.
"With an unparalleled depth of experience across a wide variety of technologies and jurisdictions, Howrey’s intellectual property litigation team provides clients outstanding value, unrivalled service, and excellent advocacy."
Representative Highlights
- Bright Response LLC vs. Google, Inc., et al. Represented Yahoo!, a co-defendant in a patent infringement suit brought by Bright Response LLC alleging that Yahoo! Infringed Bright Response’s patent related to a method for processing electronic messages by providing internet search advertising. The jury returned a verdict on the first day of deliberation of non-infringement in favor of Yahoo! and found that none of the three asserted claims were infringed literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The jury further found by clear and convincing evidence that all three claims were invalid under public use, obviousness, and lack of sufficient written description, and the
patent was also invalid for improper inventorship.
- The Crash Dummy Movie, LLC v. Mattel, Inc. Represented a toy manufacturer defending the appeal of a trademark opposition proceeding in the Federal Circuit, which affirmed the decision that the client had not abandoned the mark.
- PA Advisors, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc. Represented an internet search provider defending a patent infringement charge before the trial court, which granted summary judgment of noninfringement.
Read more...
Admissions
Courts & Adjudicative Bodies
- United States Supreme Court
- United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- United States District Court for the Central District of California
- United States District Court for the Northern District of California
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California
- United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- United States District Court for the Central District of Illinois
- United States Patent and Trademark Office
Clerkship
- Hon. Helen W. Nies, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (1984)
Education
- George Washington University Law School (LLM, Patent and Trade Regulation Law, 1985)
- Lewis & Clark Law School (JD, 1984)
- University of Portland (BS, Mechanical Engineering, 1979)
|
|