William H. Boice joined the firm as a litigation partner in June 1980. Mr. Boice has substantial trial experience representing significant corporate clients in a wide variety of cases. His trial practice is focused on complex litigation including patent and trade secret litigation, class actions, business torts and other business litigation.
Mr. Boice has tried cases in courts throughout the United States and has argued appeals in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fifth, Sixth, Ninth, Eleventh and Federal Circuits, as well as The Georgia Court of Appeals and Supreme Court.
Mr. Boice is a member of the firm’s Executive Committee. He is listed in the 2015 and the six years immediately preceding editions of Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business for his work in Intellectual Property and General Commercial Litigation. Mr. Boice is also named a 2014 “Atlanta Lawyer of the Year” and listed for Commercial Litigation, Intellectual Property Litigation and Patent Law in 2017 and the 14 years immediately preceding by The Best Lawyers in America®. He was recognized in The International Who’s Who of Business Lawyers for 2009, 2011 and 2014. Mr.
Boice is also recognized as a Georgia “Super Lawyer” in Intellectual Property Litigation and Business Litigation in 2009, for Intellectual Property Litigation in 2015 and the five years immediately preceding, and as a Top 100 Georgia “Super Lawyer” in the area of Intellectual Property Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine. He was named to Georgia Trend’s “Legal Elite” list in 2014 and the five years immediately preceding. He was named a top patent practitioner in 2016 and the four years immediately preceding by IAM Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners. In 2007, 2014, 2015 and 2016, Mr. Boice was recognized in Benchmark: Litigation as a Georgia “Litigation Star.” In 2013, he was named to The International Who’s Who of Patent Lawyers. Mr. Boice is AV® rated by Martindale-Hubbell.*
*CV, BV, and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedure’s standards and policies.
- Defending AT&T Mobility in the District of Delaware. Softview filed an action alleging that AT&T Mobility, along with numerous wireless device manufacturers and carriers, infringes two patents that relate to how scalable content is displayed on a Web page. (Judge Stark). Softview LLC v. Apple Inc., et al., No. 10-cv-00389 (D. Del. filed May 10, 2010).
- Counsel for Red Hat, Inc., Amazon.com, SoftLayer Technologies, Rackspace, Whole Foods, The Planet.com Internet Services, and NYSE Euronext in a patent infringement litigation regarding caching functionality in the Linux operating system in the Eastern District of Texas. A favorable settlement occurred shortly before trial.
- Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. SoftLayer Technologies Inc., et al., No. 06-269 (E.D. Tex. filed June 16, 2009) and Red Hat Inc. v. Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC, No. 09-549 (E.D. Tex. filed Dec. 9, 2009). (Judge Davis and Magistrate Judge John Love).
- Lead Counsel for Cisco in a patent infringement litigation in the Eastern District of Virginia. The plaintiff asserted 11 patents related to encryption and network hardware technology against Cisco and several other defendants. In connection with defending Cisco, we performed significant analysis on the network hardware at issue. The court stayed the case for all defendants except for IBM, which was successful in getting summary judgment of non-infringement and on appeal. (Judge Brinkema). TecSec, Inc. v. IBM Corp., et al., No. 1:10-cv-115 (E.D. Va. filed Feb. 5, 2010).
- Lead counsel for Wachovia Bank, Branch Banking & Trust Company, M&T Bank and Comerica Bank against DataTreasury in patent infringement suits in the Eastern District of Texas. The patents at issue involved various technologies, including telecommunications, electronic payment and clearing systems, software, business methods, and electrical and mechanical devices. The plaintiff in these cases sued more than 40 defendants, including many leading banks and financial institutions. Cases settled in 2009 and 2010 shortly before trial. DataTreasury Corp. v. Wachovia Corp., et al., No. 05-0293 (E.D. Tex. filed June 28, 2005) and DataTreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co., et al., No. 06-0072 (E.D. Tex. filed Feb. 24, 2006). (Judge Folsom).
- Lead counsel on behalf of Cox Communications and EarthLink in a suit filed by Ronald A. Katz Licensing Technology in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The suit claims patent infringement stemming from our clients’ use of automated telephone processing systems. The action was consolidated for pre-trial proceedings with other suits brought by Katz against various other defendants in the Central District of California, with Judge Klausner presiding over discovery and other pre-trial matters. Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing, LLP v. Cox Commc’ns, No. 07-2299 (E.D. Tex. filed April 6, 2007); In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., No. 07-01816 (E.D. Tex. filed July 7, 2008) and Ronald A. Katz Tech. Licensing, LLP v. EarthLink, Inc., No. 07-2235, No. 07-2299 (E.D. Tex. filed April 9, 2007); In re Katz Interactive Call Processing Patent Litig., No. 07-01816 (E.D. Tex. filed July 7, 2008).
- We represented Interface Inc., a leading manufacturer of carpet tile, in patent litigation filed by one of its largest competitors alleging hundreds of millions of dollars in damages as a result of infringement of two patents. After a three-week jury trial, the jury took less than one hour to find that the competitor’s patents were invalid and that Interface did not infringe them. During the hearing on inequitable conduct issues, Interface reached a confidential settlement with the competitor resolving these issues as well as resolving Interface’s counterclaims for infringement of two of its own patents.
- Lead counsel defending adidas in a patent infringement suit brought by Nike in the Eastern District of Texas related to Nike Shox technology and the use of electronic sensors in shoes. After we obtained a favorable Markman ruling for adidas, Nike stipulated to non-infringement by adidas of the Shox patent. We successfully negotiated a favorable settlement agreement for adidas prior to trial. (Judge Clark). Nike, Inc. v. adidas America, Inc., et al., 479 F. Supp. 2d 664 (E.D. Tex. 2007).
- University of Virginia School of Law, J.D. (1974)
- Emory University, B.A., Economics (1968)
- Georgia (1974)
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Rate : $$$$