William (Bill) Gaede

William (Bill) Gaede has more than three decades of intellectual property law experience, specializing in the life sciences sector and was drawn to the field by the intricate legal challenges and the critical impact on human health.

His track record includes successes guiding multinational pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies in high-stakes competitor litigation involving key innovations.

One of Gaede's recent notable cases involved representing Natera, Inc. and its pioneering technology in personalized cancer monitoring. Natera, Inc. v. ArcherDX, Inc. 1-20-cv-00125 (D. Del., filed Jan. 27, 2020).

This technology represents a significant advancement in how medical professionals can track and potentially intervene in a patient's cancer progression at an earlier stage than traditional methods allow.

Early on in the case, the defendants pled that Natera's patents were directed to ineligible subject matter and moved for judgment under Section 101.

Fast forward three years, a Delaware jury returned a resounding verdict on May 15, 2023, awarding $19.3 million to Natera.

"It was a gratifying experience to work for Natera, a company at the forefront of this technology," he said. "Their relentless pursuit of excellence in developing and successfully commercializing this technology to aid cancer patients was truly inspiring and is the reason why I find satisfaction in my work. The case culminated in the issuance of a permanent injunction, safeguarding Natera's substantial investments in its research and development initiatives, as reflected in its patents."

Presenting complex cases like Natera's to a jury poses unique challenges, particularly in conveying the intricacies of the technology and the surrounding issues of inventorship, Gaede explained.

"In the Natera case, we were able to effectively communicate the complexity of the technology and the issues surrounding inventorship," he said.

Analyzing trends, Gaede said there is an increasing focus on the issue of prosecution laches, which arise from the common practice of filing continuation applications in patent prosecution to obtain different sets of claims.

"Defendants are now more intent on raising this defense, particularly in cases where the patent in question is a continuation and was granted several years after the initial patent application was submitted," he said.