![[IPWatchdog Logo]](https://ipwatchdog.com/wp-content/themes/IPWatchdog%20-%202023/assets/images/temp/logo-small@2x.png){kind=logo}
William R. Jones
Associate
Robins Kaplan LLP
William Jones is an associate in Robins Kaplan LLP‘s Intellectual Property and Technology Group. William uses his background as an economist and experience analyzing damages to represent his clients in complex technology and litigation matters.
William earned his J.D. from Northwestern Pritzker School of Law, where he was the Managing Executive Editor of the Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property.
Prior to attending law school, William worked as an economist in litigation and energy consulting, where his primary focus was patent damages analysis. In this role, he modeled damages measuring lost profits, reasonable royalties, and direct damages in a range of areas including circuit architecture, semiconductor fabrication, mobile device technology, software applications, and consumer electronics.
Recent Articles by William R. Jones
How Recent Patent Damages Precedent May Increase Reasonable Royalty Awards
In the last few years, developments in U.S. patent damages law have emerged that may have an upward effect on the magnitude of reasonable royalty awards. This article addresses two developments that have begun to take hold in the U.S. district courts after significant precedential rulings from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Written Description in the Life Sciences: The Devil is in the Details
There is a quid pro quo under the U.S. patent laws. In exchange for disclosing her invention, an inventor receives a limited monopoly. Recent developments, however, have made it harder for those in the biotechnology industry to obtain the benefit of this bargain. The written description requirement mandates that a patent specification convey to one of skill in the art that the inventors had possession of their invention as of the day they filed their patent application. Ariad Pharms., Inc. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 598 F.3d 1336, 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2010). Over the last decade, three areas have proven troublesome in the life sciences.