Andrew W. Williams, Ph.D.

P: 312.913.3301
F: 312.913.0002

Andrew W. Williams is a partner with McDonnell Boehnen Hulbert & Berghoff LLP. Dr. Williams has over fourteen years of experience in all areas of intellectual property law, with particular emphasis on patent litigation, client counseling, and patent procurement in the areas of biochemistry, pharmaceuticals, and molecular diagnostics. This includes the representation of pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, both large and small, as well as several universities. Dr. Williams’ litigation experience spans a diverse range of technologies, with a concentration in litigation involving pharmaceuticals and biotechnology. This experience includes jury and bench trials in federal district court; practice before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board; and advocacy in private arbitration proceedings. He is particularly well versed in the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) and the Hatch-Waxman ANDA statute to better assist with the specific needs of his pharmaceutical and bio-therapeutic clients.

Dr. Williams is a frequent speaker and author on a variety of intellectual property law topics. In particular, he is an author and regular contributor to the Patent Docs weblog, a site focusing primarily on biotechnology and pharmaceutical patent law. He has also authored articles for such publications as, Intellectual Property Magazine, Intellectual Property Today, Expert Opinion on Therapeutic Patents, and Biosimilar Developments. Dr. Williams has written extensively on issues specific to the AIA-related PTAB trials, with a particular focus on life-science-related IPRs and PGRs; the emergence of BPCIA-related biosimilars and the corresponding patent resolution strategies; efforts to draft legislation to curb abusive patent litigation; and ethical issues related to patent practice. Dr. Williams has regularly been quoted in articles related to patent law issues, and has recently been quoted in articles found in MedPage Today and BioPharma related to recent events for Biosimilars. In 2013, he was interviewed for a segment that aired on the NPR program “All Things Considered” that addressed legislative efforts to address the so-called “patent troll” problem.

Speaking Engagements/Presentations

“The PTAB Front and Center at the Federal Circuit and the Supreme Court: The First Year of Appellate Review,” MBHB webinar, May, 2016

“The Evolving World of Biosimilars Litigation,” MBHB webinar, September, 2015

“Harmonization of USPTO Ethical Standards in the Post-AIA Era” at the John Marshall Law School Ethics in the Practice of Law symposium, April 2015

“Inter Partes Review (IPR) at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board” at the Northwestern Law IP Symposium, March 2015

“Prevailing Before the PTAB “Death Squad”: Practical Considerations for Petitioners and Patent Holders,” MBHB webinar, February 2015

“Attorney's Fees, Costs and Other Fee-Shifting Measures in Patent and Trademark Litigation” webinar, sponsored by the ABA Center for Professional Development, February 2015

“Reviewing Fact Issues of Claim Construction – Will the Supreme Court Defer to Federal Circuit Precedent?” ABA Section of Litigation Roundtable, June 2014

“‘Standing Out’ – The Supreme Court’s Redefined Standard for Fee Shifting in Patent Litigation, and How It Might Impact ‘Patent Troll’ Litigation” MBHB webinar, June 2014

Panelist for “Eli Lilly and the Canadian NAFTA Challenge” at the Public Citizen and American University Washington College of Law’s Secondary Use Pharmaceutical Patents: Litigation and Trade Policy Briefing, June 2014

“Ethical Considerations in Patenting Biotechnological Inventions” at the John Marshall Law School Ethics in the Practice of Law symposium, April 2014

“Solving the ‘NPE Problem’ – Legislative Proposals” at the Northwestern Law IP Symposium, February 2014

“Proposed Patent Reform Legislation: How it May Impact You (Especially if You Are Not Considered to be a “Patent Troll”), MBHB webinar, February 2014

“New USPTO Rules of Professional Conduct – Harmonization of Ethical Standards,” Corporate Counsel committee of the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago, January 2014


Intellectual Property Owner’s Association

  • Member of the Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology Issues Committee
  • Past member of the U.S. Patent Law committee

Federal Circuit Bar Association

  • Member of the Amicus Committee

American Bar Association

  • Member of the Patents in the Chemical and Life Sciences Committee
    • Co-chair of the BPCIA and Biosimilars Legislation subcommittee

American Intellectual Property Law Association

Chicago Bar Association

American Association for the Advancement of Science


Top Author in JD Supra Readers’ Choice 2016 (“Patents”)

Extern, Hon. Richard Linn, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Past Events

May 18, 2016
September 22, 2015
MBHB Partners Kevin E. Noonan, Ph.D. and Andrew W. Williams, Ph.D. Are the Featured Presenters
April 24, 2015
MBHB Partner Andrew Williams is the Featured Presenter at this John Marshall Law School-Sponsored Program
February 25, 2015
MBHB Attorneys Andrew W. Williams, Ph.D. and John "Jay" M. Schafer Are the Featured Presenters
February 17, 2015
MBHB Partner Andrew W. Williams, Ph.D. is a Featured Panelist at this ABA Sponsored Webinar


Winter 2016 (snippets)
February 4, 2016, marked the one-year anniversary of the initial In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC Federal Circuit decision – the first opinion stemming from the first appeal of the first final written decision of the first inter partes review (“IPR”) ever filed. From the time that decision came out until the end of January 2016, there have been at least 56 appeals from IPRs and Covered Business Method (“CBM”) patent reviews resolved by this appeals court.
Summer 2015 (snippets)
In the highly fractured Amgen v. Sandoz decision, the Federal Circuit, in part, concluded that the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (“BPCIA”) patent resolution procedure was not mandatory, leaving open the distinct possibility that no biosimilar applicant will ever use the new biosimilar approval pathway.
Winter 2015 (snippets)
This article highlights some of the takeaway lessons from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s decisions and guidance with regard to three of the most important issues: the content of the substitute claim set, the burden of proof, and the requirement of the patent holder to establish patentability of the substitute claims.
February 5, 2015 (snippets Alert)
MBHB snippets Alert - February 5, 2015

On February 4, the Federal Circuit affirmed the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (“PTAB” or “Board”) first inter partes review (“IPR”) Final Written Decision. In fact, In re Cuozzo Speed Technologies, LLC. was the first appeal of any IPR Final Written Decision, and it related to the first IPR ever filed. As such, this case was significant not only for its substance, but for what the Federal Circuit said regarding some of the more controversial rules promulgated by the Patent Office for IPR proceedings. With regard to the substance of this case, the Federal Circuit agreed with the Board that the reviewed claims in Cuozzo’s patent were invalid as obvious over the prior art. In this case, the claimed technology was directed to indicating speed limits at particular locations on GPS units.
January 20, 2015 (snippets Alert)

MBHB snippets Alert - January 20, 2015

In a 7-2 decision authored by Justice Breyer, the U.S. Supreme Court today held that an “appellate court must apply a ‘clear error,’ not de novo, standard of review” to the evidentiary underpinnings of a district court’s claim construction determination. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz Inc., No. 13-854, slip op. at 1-2 (U.S. Jan. 20, 2015). But what are those evidentiary underpinnings?

Spring 2014 (snippets)
Both Congress and the White House have been actively pursuing patent litigation reform in an attempt to combat the perceived “patent troll” problem. Of course, any legislation will impact all patent holders, even though most will not consider themselves to be patent trolls. The disconnect occurs because so-called “trolls” are being equated with all non-practicing entities (“NPEs”) , even though this includes a large number of entities to which that derogatory term was never meant to apply. After all, an NPE is simply a patent holder that does not commercialize the claimed innovation.
Generate a PDF of your page(s)
Page has been queued
An error has occurred
Added to queue
Confirm Delete All Message
No Items in Packet Message
To add a page, select Add. To view the package, select View.