Skip to main content

William A. Meunier

Member

[email protected]

+1.617.348.1845

Share:

Bill has mastered the complexities of inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and high-stakes patent litigation. Bill has helped patent owners achieve success in more than 90% of IPRs, compared to the industry average of only 35%. In addition, at the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, he also achieved the first complete reversal and remand of an IPR decision against a patent owner. Bill also has over 20 years of experience litigating patent cases, both in district courts throughout the United States and before the International Trade Commission.

Bill handles all types of intellectual property disputes, with a particular emphasis on patent infringement litigation, inter partes reviews, and other matters related to the enforcement of intellectual property rights. He has litigated intellectual property cases in District Courts throughout the United States, including the Eastern District of Virginia, Northern and Southern Districts of California, Eastern District of Texas, District of Massachusetts, District of Delaware, Northern District of Ohio, and Middle District of North Carolina.

With more than 18 years of experience, Bill counsels clients in all phases of patent litigation, from initial counseling through trial and appeal. He has extensive experience leading litigation teams to resolve patent infringement disputes in a diverse array of technology areas such as internet services and systems; computer hardware and software; mobile systems and applications; medical devices and services; biotechnology; mechanical devices and manufacturing; sports equipment; and toys and novelties. In addition, his practice encompasses representing clients in cases involving copyrights, trademarks, trade secrets, unfair competition, and patent-related antitrust issues.

Prior to joining Mintz, Bill was a partner at a national law firm.

Education

  • The John Marshall Law School (JD, summa cum laude, Order of the Coif)
  • Tufts University (BS, Mechanical Engineering)

Recognition & Awards

  • Order of John Marshall; First in graduating class
  • Managing Intellectual Property: Patent Star - Patent Contentious and Patent Office Proceedings - Massachusetts (2019)

Recent Insights

News & Press

Viewpoints

Losing IPR Petitioners May Lack Standing To Appeal

January 17, 2017 | Blog | By Michael Renaud, William Meunier

When the Patent Trial and Appeal Board issues a final written decision finding against an IPR Petitioner, can that Petitioner necessarily appeal that adverse decision? In a case of first impression, the Federal Circuit recently answered “no.”
Read more
The Federal Circuit has again addressed which types of patents are eligible for Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review before the Patent Trial & Appeals Board.
Read more
The America Invents Act (“AIA”) mandates that a Covered Business Method Review is available only for challenging the validity of covered business method patents.
Read more
The Federal Circuit reaffirmed last week that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB’s) decision to discontinue inter partes review (IPR) proceedings is not reviewable on appeal.
Read more
As a patent owner involved in patent litigation, you must consider numerous factors when negotiating a settlement agreement. An important contemplation is timing, because finalizing a settlement agreement at the wrong juncture of your legal proceedings can have devastating results.
Read more
The Federal Circuit recently determined that it lacked jurisdiction to review the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s determination that assignor estoppel has no affect in an inter partes review (“IPR”).
Read more
On March 23, 2016, the Federal Circuit in MAG Aerospace Indus., Inc. v. B/E Aerospace, Inc., Nos. 2015-1370, -1426, upheld a decision concerning U.S. patents directed to vacuum toilets found on commercial aircraft.
Read more
Following the filing of a petition with the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) seeking to initiate either an Inter Partes Review (IPR) or Covered Business Method (CBM) Review, the patent owner may file a preliminary response addressing the arguments in the petition and also potentially raising arguments regarding statutory bars that may prevent the IPR or CBM proceeding from being initiated.
Read more
The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently designated as precedential its decision in Westlake Services, LLC v. Credit Acceptance Corp., CBM2014-00176, Paper 28 (PTAB May 14, 2015)  addressing the scope of estoppel under 35 U.S.C. § 325(e).
Read more

PTAB Designates Decision Concerning One-Year Statutory Bars As Precedential

January 21, 2016 | Blog | By William Meunier, Nick Armington

Last week, the PTAB designated two recent post-grant proceeding decisions as “precedential,” marking only the second and third time it has designated one of its opinions as binding on all PTAB judges.
Read more

News & Press

News Thumbnail
Law360 featured a Mintz patent litigation team as “Legal Lions” in its weekly list of the top verdicts for its representation of Elm 3DS Innovations, a patent licensing entity.

In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit affirmed decisions upholding the validity of nearly a dozen Elm patents on semiconductor technologies that accused infringers challenged at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

The Mintz team representing Elm includes Member and Chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Division Michael Renaud, Members William Meunier, James Wodarski and Michael Newman, Special Counsel Sandra Badin, and Associates Kevin Amendt and Matthew Galica.
Press Release Thumbnail
A team of Mintz Levin attorneys has successfully defended two separate Inter Partes Reviews (IPRs) challenging the validity Infobridge PTE LTD.’s U.S. Patent No. 8,917,772 (“’772 Patent”).
News Thumbnail
This article notes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) has denied Samsung’s request to challenge a patent it has been accused of infringing – resulting in a final win in a series of victories for Mintz client, Elm 3DS Innovations.
A team of Mintz attorneys has successfully defended 105 of 107 patent claims across 14 instituted Inter Partes Reviews in a series of decisive wins for client Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC.
News Thumbnail
Bill Meunier, an Intellectual Property Member in the Boston office, was quoted in a Law360 article emphasizing the importance of knowing and adhering to best practices for America Invents Act reviews at the PTAB.
Press Release Thumbnail
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit found decisively in favor of Mint and client Straight Path IP Group, Inc. in a long-fought battle over three of the licensing firm’s patents. The court upheld a prior 2016 decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Press Release Thumbnail
Mintz attorneys have saved sixty-three of sixty-five challenged patent claims across eight patents in a series of sweeping Inter Partes Review victories for their client, Elm 3DS Innovations, LLC, victories that may pave the way to Elm prevailing in other pending invalidity challenges. 
This article notes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) upheld claims in a Straight Path IP Group patent matter. The coverage notes that the decision follows a rare reversal by the Federal Circuit that found the PTAB used an incorrect claim construction previously.
This article notes that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board has upheld the validity of two Straight Path patents in Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd.’s review.
Mintz Members Bill Meunier and Mike Newman are mentioned in this Law360 article on a challenge to the Federal Circuit’s revival of a Straight Path IP Group patent brought to the Patent Trial and Appeals Board by LG, Hulu, and others.