John Padro

John Padro is a partner in Goodwin’s IP Litigation group. He is an experienced technology and IP litigator representing leading technology and life sciences clients including LG Electronics, Pfizer, Samsung Bioepis, Google, Abiomed, Biotronik, Omilia NLS, Nest, and UCB. 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 smart phone 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. From 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:

• LG Electronics in a contract, antitrust, and FRAND/IP dispute against Dolby Laboratories, Inc. Resolved during the pendency of a preliminary injunction brought by LG Electronics.*
• NielsenIQ in a contact, unfair competition and trade secret matter against the NPD group concerning the development and commercialization of consumer panel technology.*
• Celestica, Inc. in a five patent infringement matter brought by Longhorn HD in the E.D. 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.*
  • British Telecommunications, who alleged that Google infringed six patents through its offering of various location-based and content-access featured in many of Google’s mobile and desktop products. Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement of lead patent and resolved thereafter.*
  • Wireless Ink Corporation concerning social media and collaboration platforms. Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement as to all claims, which was affirmed on appeal.*
• Nest Labs in a patent infringement matter filed brought by BRK Brands, who alleged that Nest infringed six patents through its offering of the Nest Protect, a combination smoke and carbon monoxide detector. Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement.*

Life Sciences Clients:

• Several Biotronik entities in two patent infringement against W.H. Wall Family Holdings, LLLP 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 trade secret misappropriation action concerning pneumococcal conjugate vaccines.*
• Samsung Bioepis Co., Ltd. in BPCIA litigation concerning a biosimilar version of Herceptin®.*
• Pfizer in an antitrust matter brought by various class action plaintiffs concerning the procurement of a patent relating to Celebrex®.*
• 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 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 start-up, 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 non-profit in a commercial dispute with a former partner, and has represented a variety of clients, including minors, in immigration and family law proceedings.

• 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