John Padro

John Padro is an experienced technology and IP trial litigator representing leading technology, medtech, and life sciences clients including LG Electronics, Renesas, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Google, Abiomed, Biotronik, Nest, and Tecan Genomics. John’s practice focuses on the confluence of computer science and life sciences technologies and on navigating the complex commercial realities of developing, commercializing, and licensing new technologies. From the smartphone wars to biosimilar launches to the latest FRAND and licensing disputes, John has litigated and advised on some of the highest-stakes emerging technology and IP disputes and has consistently secured early and case-dispositive victories.

While much of his practice concerns patent, trade secret, and contractual disputes, John has also handled a wide range of intellectual property and complex litigation matters for his clients, including bet-the-company patent disputes to major collaborations gone awry. John’s technical background and advocacy skills allow him to craft cost-effective singular strategies to secure his clients the commercial results they need.

John also advises on various transactional matters, including pre-litigation, due diligence, and licensing related to intellectual property rights and joint ventures.

John’s experience includes the representation of:

Technology Clients:

• Renesas in a five-patent matter concerning DRAM technology brought by Signal LLC in the Eastern District of Texas.
• Fortell in a trade secret case concerning AI-enabled hearing aids brought by Starkey.
• Yotta Energy in a patent case concerning solar power equipment brought in the Western District of Texas.
• Safe Security in a trade secret and contract case concerning AI-based cyber risk management technology brought by SecurityScorecard.
• LG Electronics in a contract, antitrust, and FRAND/IP dispute against Dolby Laboratories.*
• NielsenIQ in a contact, unfair competition and trade secret matter against the NPD group concerning the development and commercialization of consumer panel technology.*
• Celestica in a five-patent infringement matter brought by Longhorn HD in the Eastern District of Texas.*
• Omilia NLS in a patent, copyright, and antitrust matter in which Omilia was alleged to infringe eight software patents and copyrights owned by the largest competitor in the speech recognition market. Resolved after favorable claim construction and early case-dispositive summary judgment motions filed.*
• Google and YouTube in a variety of patent infringement matters including those against VideoShare, who alleged Google and YouTube infringed two patents relating to the use of transcoding of videos online. Invalidated both patents on the basis that they did not cover patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101, a decision affirmed on appeal.*

Life Sciences Clients:

• TAHO Pharmaceuticals in a trade secret and contract dispute against Azurity Pharmaceuticals concerning the development of Apixiban products.
• Tecan Genomics in connection with the assertion of multiple patent infringements concerning the assertion against Invitae, ArcherDX, IDT, and QIAGEN.
• Several Biotronik entities in two patent infringement matters against W.H. Wall Family Holdings concerning angioplasty stents. Resolved after successfully dismissing related litigation in the Western District of Texas.*
• Abiomed in two patent litigation matters in which the client’s intravascular heart pump products were alleged to infringe eight patents owned by another medical device company. After prevailing at claim construction, the case was narrowed to just two patents. Obtained summary judgement of noninfringement on the primary patent.*
• Pfizer in a trade secret misappropriation action concerning pneumococcal conjugate vaccines as well as an antitrust matter brought by various class action plaintiffs concerning the procurement of a patent relating to Celebrex®.*
• Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd., in BPCIA litigation concerning a biosimilar version of Herceptin®.*
• UCB in a declaratory judgment patent infringement action against Yeda Research and Development. The litigation involved UCB’s product Cimzia®, a humanized antibody that targets the receptor TNF-alpha and is approved for the treatment of Crohn’s disease and rheumatoid arthritis, among other indications. Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement; a decision affirmed on appeal.*

* Denotes experience prior to joining Goodwin.

Prior to joining Goodwin, John was a partner at White & Case. While at White & Case, John was co-head of the Alianza (Hispanic) Affinity Network.

Before joining White & Case, he worked in-house at WiPower, Inc., a hardware and software startup, where he advised the company on developing its intellectual property, on commercializing its proprietary wireless power system, and with respect to WiPower’s sale to Qualcomm.

In addition to his regular practice, John has a strong commitment to representing pro bono clients. He first chaired an AAA arbitration for a nonprofit in a commercial dispute with a former partner, and has represented a variety of clients, including minors, in immigration and family law proceedings.

• Legal 500, Recommended for Trade Secret 2024-2026
• Managing IP, Patent Notable Practitioner 2023-2026
• Euromoney’s LMG Rising Stars Awards Americas 2020 – Patents (shortlisted)

• Co-Author, “CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. Further Muddies § 101 Patent Eligibility,” White & Case Client Alert, May 2013
• Co-Author, “Federal Circuit Opens Door to New Defense to Inducing Infringement,” White & Case Client Alert, July 2013