Areas of Practice

Mr. Dodson has represented biotechnology, electronics and consumer product companies on patent cases covering pioneering patents in the biotechnology, medical device, optical and electronic hardware, software and mechanical device fields. His cases have established precedents in the areas of laches, written description, enablement and patent infringement jurisdiction.

Mr. Dodson’s notable litigation work includes:

• Regents of the University of California v. Monsanto (N.D. Cal. 2005). In February 2006, Mr. Dodson was lead trial counsel for The Regents of the University of California on major patent litigation against Monsanto Company over a pioneering biotechnology patent involving bovine growth hormone. The case settled for in excess of $200 million on the day before trial, which was the largest biotech patent settlement/judgment in 2006 according to Portfolio Media, New York (December 29, 2006).
• Trimble Navigation v. Hemisphere GPS (N.D. Cal. 2005). In August of 2007, Mr. Dodson won a summary judgment motion of noninfringement for Hemisphere GPS against Trimble Navigation involving GPS devices for contour farming. That win ultimately led to a favorable settlement of the entire matter in October of 2007.
• Soitec, S.A. v. Silicon Genesis Corp., (D. Mass.). In April of 2002, Mr. Dodson won a unanimous 7-0 jury verdict for Silicon Genesis, a Silicon Valley company making silicon on insulator wafers used in electronic devices....more »

Mr. Dodson has represented biotechnology, electronics and consumer product companies on patent cases covering pioneering patents in the biotechnology, medical device, optical and electronic hardware, software and mechanical device fields. His cases have established precedents in the areas of laches, written description, enablement and patent infringement jurisdiction.

Mr. Dodson’s notable litigation work includes:

• Regents of the University of California v. Monsanto (N.D. Cal. 2005). In February 2006, Mr. Dodson was lead trial counsel for The Regents of the University of California on major patent litigation against Monsanto Company over a pioneering biotechnology patent involving bovine growth hormone. The case settled for in excess of $200 million on the day before trial, which was the largest biotech patent settlement/judgment in 2006 according to Portfolio Media, New York (December 29, 2006).
• Trimble Navigation v. Hemisphere GPS (N.D. Cal. 2005). In August of 2007, Mr. Dodson won a summary judgment motion of noninfringement for Hemisphere GPS against Trimble Navigation involving GPS devices for contour farming. That win ultimately led to a favorable settlement of the entire matter in October of 2007.
• Soitec, S.A. v. Silicon Genesis Corp., (D. Mass.). In April of 2002, Mr. Dodson won a unanimous 7-0 jury verdict for Silicon Genesis, a Silicon Valley company making silicon on insulator wafers used in electronic devices. Defended SiGen in a patent infringement suit brought by Soitec, the largest producer of silicon on insulator wafers in the world. The jury in Boston, Massachusetts decided unanimously that SiGen's commercial processes did not infringe Soitec's patent and that Soitec's patent was invalid.
• PUR Water Purification Products, Inc. v. Brita Products Co., (D. Minn.). In September 2001, Mr. Dodson won a unanimous 12-0 jury verdict for a Clorox Company against a Procter and Gamble company involving a patent dispute over a water treatment pitcher used to purify tap water. The jury in the plaintiff's hometown decided unanimously in favor of Mr. Dodson's position that his client did not infringe plaintiff's patent.
• People’s Advocate v. California Institute for Regenerative Medicine (Ala. Super. Ct. 2006). In April of 2006, Mr. Dodson successfully represented Americans for Stem Cell Therapies before state court in a constitutional challenge to the California Stem Cell Institute.
• Pro-Neuron v. Regents of the University of California (S.D. Super. Ct. 2003). Favorably settled a two year lawsuit brought by Pro-Neuron, a drug development company against the University of California for breach of contract, trade secret theft, and unfair competition. The case involved a dispute over who owned the patent invention rights to the use of a drug that may benefit or possibly cure people suffering from Parkinson disease, Huntington disease, and Alzheimer dementia.
• University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 249 F.Supp.2d 216 (W.D.N.Y. 2003); University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 358 F.3d 916 (Fed. Cir. 2004); University of Rochester v. G.D. Searle & Co., 375 F.3d 1303 (Fed. Cir. 2004), cert. denied, 125 S.Ct. 629 (2004). Lead trial and appellate attorney on University of Rochester patent infringement action against Pfizer involving the drug, Celebrex.
• Lead trial and appellate attorney representing The Regents of the University of California in landmark patent and antitrust litigation involving recombinantly manufactured human growth hormone. The case settled for $200 million, which was the largest patent settlement in the history of biotechnology and one of the largest in the history of patent litigation. The ten year case included five appeals to the Federal Circuit, three appeals to the Supreme Court and a six week jury trial after which the jury voted unanimously in favor of the University on patent validity and 8-1 in favor of the University on patent infringement. In re Recombinant DNA Technology Patent and Contract Litigation, 874 F. Supp. 904 (S.D. Ind. 1994); Genentech, Inc. v. The Regents of the University of California, 952 F. Supp. 617 (S.D. Ind. 1996); Genentech, Inc. v. The Regents of the University of California, 939 F. Supp. 639 (S.D. Ind. 1996); In re Regents of the University of California, 101 F.3d 1386 (Fed. Cir. 1996); Genentech, Inc. v. The Regents of the University of California, 143 F.3d 1446 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re The Regents of The University of California, 964 F.2d 1128 (Fed. Cir. 1992); The Regents of The University of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., 21 U.S.P.Q.2d 1201 (N.D. Cal. 1991); In re Recombinant DNA Technology Patent and Contract Litigation, 30 U.S.P.Q.2d 1881 (S.D. Ind. 1994).
• A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (Fed. Cir. 1992) (en banc). Lead trial and appellate attorney on case involving patent infringement of mechanical mold for making concrete highway barrier wall. Won landmark en banc case on laches and estoppel, which changed 150 years of patent law. Won three judge panel case on laches and estoppel; A.C. Aukerman v. R.L. Chaides Construction Co., 18 U.S.P.Q.2d 1618 (Fed. Cir. 1991).
• The Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University v. Harris Corporation (N.D. Cal. 1994). Successfully represented Stanford University in patent infringement suit involving a pioneering MOS gate-controlled transistor. The case settled after a year of litigation with a favorable monetary award for Stanford University.
• Kucharczyk v. The Regents of The University of California, 946 F. Supp. 1419 (N.D. Cal. 1996). Successfully represented The Regents of the University of California in a challenge to its research and licensing program involving patented imaging agents for magnetic resonance imaging.
• Singer v. The Regents of the University of California, 40 U.S.P.Q.2d. 1035 (S.F. Super. Ct. 1996). Successfully represented The Regents in an inventorship and licensing dispute involving magnetic resonance imaging technology.
• Commonwealth of Pennsylvania v. United States Steel Corporation, 325 A.2d 324 (Commw. Ct. 1974); Commonwealth v. U.S. Steel, 5 ERC 1565 (Court of Common Pleas 1972). Successfully litigated complex technical cases before the Court of Common Pleas, Commonwealth Court and Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. Lead counsel on the United States Steel Clairton Coke Works case, which was a national precedent-setting case involving U.S. Steel’s coke oven batteries and steel plants at the largest facility in the world.
• Virginia Surface Mining and Reclamation Assn. v. Andrus, 483 F. Supp. 425 (W.D. Va. 1980) reviewed in favor of the Interior Department, Hodel v. Virginia Surface Min. & Recl. Assn., 452 U.S. 264 (1981). Lead trial counsel on litigation challenging constitutionality of the Surface Mining Act of 1977 under the Commerce Clause and the 10th Amendment. Developed district court trial record which formed the basis for landmark 10th Amendment case decided 9-0 in favor of the Interior Department before the U.S. Supreme Court.
• In re Surface Mining Regulation Litigation, 452 F. Supp. 327 (D.D.C.), aff’d, National Coal Assoc. v. Andrus, No. 78-1406 (D.C. Cir. 1978). Lead Interior department attorney on district court litigation reviewing Surface Mining Act of 1977, civil engineering regulations, including sediment pond, particle velocity blasting, soil grading and hydrology standards for surface mining.