William Milliken

I'll research this attorney's background and practice before writing the summary.

Let me gather more specifics on his bio, education, and key cases.

Professional Summary: William H. ("Will") Milliken

Specialty / focus areas. Milliken's practice centers on patent litigation with an emphasis on Federal Circuit appellate work, PTAB proceedings, district court trials, and ITC investigations. The tracked case list reflects a technology mix heavily weighted toward semiconductor and computer memory devices (the Netlist/Samsung/Micron disputes over DRAM, DIMM, and high-bandwidth memory technology) alongside consumer electronics and remote-control technology (Roku/Universal Electronics), robotics and 3D-vision software (RoboticVISIONTech), and pharmaceutical/life-sciences matters (Teva and Corcept). Firm bios describe clients in hi-tech, consumer products, pharmaceutical, and manufacturing industries, which is consistent with the docket. In the Tempus AI/Guardant Health dispute, the underlying technology is cell-free DNA and next-generation sequencing diagnostics — a biotech/software crossover matter.

Side preference. The tracked appearances are essentially balanced: 3 plaintiff-side and 5 defendant-side. Two distinct patterns emerge. In the Netlist-related matters he has represented Netlist as plaintiff/patent owner (enforcing and defending memory patents against Samsung and Micron), while in other matters he has defended operating companies — Tempus AI (against Guardant), Teva (against Vanda and Corcept), and Roku (against Universal Electronics). This is not an NPE/PAE prosecution practice; he appears primarily aligned with operating companies and legitimate patent owners on both sides of the "v." rather than as a serial plaintiff's-side filer.

Firm context. Milliken is a Director at Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox PLLC in Washington, D.C., where he began as an attorney in March 2017 and is co-chair of the firm's Appellate Practice. He also appears in one tracked matter as Counsel at Irell & Manella (a Federal Circuit appeal in Samsung v. Netlist), indicating that firm relationship is part of his appellate practice history. The case list's dual "Sterne, Kessler" and "Sterne Kessler Goldstein Fox" firm-name entries appear to be the same firm recorded two ways.

Notable cases and outcomes. His most prominent tracked work is on the Netlist side of the Netlist/Samsung memory-patent campaign: he briefed and argued Samsung Electronics v. Netlist (Fed. Cir. 2025-1378), where the Federal Circuit affirmed the PTAB's finding in Netlist's favor (Dec. 9, 2025, per curiam, nonprecedential), and he led the Sterne Kessler team that served as Netlist's lead ITC counsel in the Samsung dispute, which settled in 2026 with a five-year cross-license and supply agreement potentially worth up to $898 million in licensing fees to Netlist. He was part of the Sterne Kessler trial team that won an $83.4 million willful-infringement jury verdict for TwinStrand Biosciences and the University of Washington against Guardant Health (D. Del., Nov. 2023). He was also on the team that secured a Teva Pharmaceuticals victory after the Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity of Vanda's asserted patents (2023–24) and worked on Federal Circuit wins for Roku against Universal Electronics (2024).

PTAB / IPR experience. Yes — this is a core part of his practice. He appears regularly in IPR and PGR proceedings, including as counsel of record in a Teva PGR (PGR2019-00048), a Corning Optical Communications IPR (pro hac vice), and the Netlist IPRs, and he co-authored firm commentary on Fintiv-related mandamus petitions. He is a named member of Sterne Kessler teams that secured PTAB institution decisions for ToughBuilt (2025). Firm materials note he has served as lead counsel on several Federal Circuit appeals from IPR proceedings.

Bar / education. J.D., Harvard Law School (magna cum laude); B.A., Mathematics, Vanderbilt University (summa cum laude). Admitted in the District of Columbia and Tennessee; admitted to the U.S. Supreme Court, the Federal Circuit, the First and Ninth Circuits, and various district courts. Prior clerkships with Judge Sandra Lynch (1st Cir.) and Judge Sarah Vance (E.D. La.) per his firm bio.

Caveat on one data point. One tracked matter appears as "Untitled case" and another as a defendant-side matter with role "Director"; because the case captions are absent, I have not attributed specific outcomes to those entries beyond what the firm's public announcements support.