William H. Milliken

Overview

William H. Milliken is a director in Sterne Kessler’s Trial & Appellate and Electronic Practice Groups. Will is co-chair of the firm’s appellate practice and focuses on patent litigation in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, federal district courts, the International Trade Commission, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He has extensive experience trying patent infringement cases in district court and briefing and arguing Federal Circuit appeals and complex motions. His clients include leading companies in the hi-tech, consumer products, pharmaceutical, and manufacturing industries.

Will is particularly well-known for his work in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where he leverages his deep knowledge of procedural and substantive appellate law to achieve successful outcomes for his clients.

Will also has an extensive pro bono practice focusing on veterans’ appeals and Eighth Amendment issues. He has litigated in the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the federal district courts on behalf of veterans seeking disability benefits and incarcerated individuals seeking habeas corpus.

Will is an Adjunct Professor of Law at the Antonin Scalia Law School of George Mason University, where he teaches an upper-level seminar on Patent Office litigation.

Will graduated first in his class at Vanderbilt University with a B.A. in mathematics and received his J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School. While at Harvard, Will was a winner of the Ames Moot Court Competition and served as executive editor of the Harvard Law & Policy Review. After law school, he clerked on the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana and the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit. He has authored two law review articles on constitutional criminal procedure and has written several problems for Harvard Law School’s moot court competition.

In addition to patent litigation, Will enjoys skiing, running, playing guitar, and spending time with his wife and his dogs Lulu and Rocco.

Technical Publications

• Retroactivity, the Due Process Clause, and the Federal Question in Montgomery v. Louisiana, 68 Stan. L. Rev. Online 42 (with Jason Zarrow) (2015)
• The Retroactivity of Substantive Rules to Cases on Collateral Review and the AEDPA, With A Special Focus on Miller v. Alabama, 48 Ind. L. Rev. 931 (with Jason Zarrow) (2015)

Representative Matters

• Mallinckrodt Pharmaceuticals v. Airgas (D. Del) – on behalf of plaintiff, obtained willful infringement finding and damages award after a jury trial.
• Wirtgen America Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc. (ITC, D. Del, Fed. Cir.) – on behalf of plaintiff, obtained exclusion order in ITC proceeding and successfully expanded the scope of the exclusion order on appeal; later obtained willful infringement finding in district court and an award of enhanced damages and a permanent injunction.
• Vanda Pharmaceuticals v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Inc. (D. Del., Fed. Cir., U.S.) – on behalf of defendant, obtained invalidation of all asserted patents on obviousness grounds after a bench trial and successfully defended that finding on appeal.
• Corcept Therapeutics v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Inc. (D.N.J., Fed. Cir.) – on behalf of defendant, obtained non-infringement finding on both asserted patents after a bench trial.
• Twinstrand Biosciences v. Guardant Health (D. Del., Fed. Cir.) – on behalf of plaintiff, obtained willful infringement finding and damages award of $83.4 million after a jury trial.
• Provisur v. Weber (Fed. Cir.) – on behalf of defendant-appellant, briefed and argued appeal successfully convincing the Federal Circuit to set aside a jury’s finding of infringement, willfulness, and damages.
• In re Vivint (Fed. Cir.)  – on behalf of patent owner-appellant, briefed and argued appeal successfully convincing the Federal Circuit to vacate a reexamination proceeding under 35 U.S.C. 325(d).
• Military Veterans Advocacy v. VA (Fed. Cir.) – briefed and argued successful challenge to VA regulations governing access to the Veterans Benefits Management System.
• Samsung Electronics v. Netlist, Inc. (Fed. Cir.) – on behalf of patent owner-appellee, briefed and argued two appeals successfully defending PTAB finding that challenged patents related to memory devices were not unpatentable.
• In re Strongbridge (Fed. Cir.) – on behalf of patent owner-appellant, briefed and argued successful challenge to PTAB’s affirmance of an examiner rejection in an ex parte appeal.
• HLFIP v. York County (Fed. Cir.) – on behalf of defendant-appellee, briefed and argued successful defense of district court’s invalidation of the asserted patent under section 101.
• AuthWallet v. Block (S.D.N.Y.) – on behalf of defendant, successfully moved to dismiss complaint on subject-matter eligibility grounds.

Education

• J.D., Harvard Law School, magna cum laude
• B.A., Mathematics, Vanderbilt University, summa cum laude

Clerkships

• The Honorable Sandra Lynch, U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
• The Honorable Sarah Vance, U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana