Intellectual Property, Entertainment, and Technology Protection
- Audits and IP Policies
- Branding and Trademarks
- International Protection for Intellectual Property
- Litigation, Enforcement, and Policing
- Mergers, Acquisitions, and Divestitures
- Patents, Inventions, and Technology Protection
- Trade Secrets and Confidentiality
- The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law, J.D., 1990, summa cum laude, Order of the Coif
Ohio State Law Journal, managing editor, 1989–1990
- Lehigh University, B.S.E.E., 1984, cum laude
Bar & Court Admissions
- District of Columbia
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- Admitted to practice law only in the states listed above.
Bill is a partner in the Vorys Washington, D.C. office and a member of the technology and intellectual property group. His practice focuses on patent and trademark litigation and appellate practice. He has litigated cases in many United States District Courts, as well as the U.S.P.T.O. Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, and the United States International Trade Commission. In addition, Bill consults in patent and trademark prosecution matters and in intellectual property aspects of corporate transactions. He is also a member of the Vorys eControl team.
Career highlights include:
- Prevailing in a trademark opposition matter before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, in which the Board issued a lengthy precedential opinion sustaining our client’s opposition to a product configuration trademark registration sought by a key competitor
- Obtaining a preliminary injunction on behalf of a clothing retailer client in a trademark counterfeiting action
- Obtaining summary judgment of non-infringement on behalf of a client manufacturer of optical lens products
- Participating on a team that successfully represented a major semiconductor manufacturer in patent litigations pertaining to landmark semiconductor automation processes
- Serving as temporary in-house intellectual property counsel to a major greeting card publisher
- Obtaining summary judgment on behalf of a major retailer in patent infringement cases brought by non-practicing entities
Bill is a member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association. Bill is admitted to practice in Ohio and the District of Columbia.
Bill received his J.D. summa cum laude from The Ohio State University Michael E. Moritz College of Law, where he was a member of the Order of the Coif and the managing editor of the Ohio State Law Journal. He received his B.S.E.E. cum laude from Lehigh University.
Professional and Community Activities
- Intellectual Property Owners Association, Member, 2017
- 6/3/2014Oldach Featured in Law360 Story Titled "Lawyers Weigh In On High Court's Induced Infringement Ruling"William Oldach, a partner in the Vorys Washington, D.C. office and a member of the technology and intellectual property group, was featured in a Law360 story on a U.S. Supreme Court ruling to set aside a Federal Circuit decision that lowered the standard for proving induced infringement.
- 1/2/2013Vorys announced that Matthew E. Albers, Tiffany Bingham Briscoe, Daniel J. Clark, Whitney C. Gibson, Robert J. Krummen, Christina M. Lyons, Joseph B. Mann, Timothy B. McGranor, Adam L. Miller, Ariel A. Mullin, William H. Oldach, III, Nicholas M.J. Ray, and Michael J. Settineri have been named partners of the firm.
- 2/24/2021Vorys attorneys Bill Oldach and Aaron M. Williams hosted a complimentary webinar in which they discussed upcoming cases which will shape the contours of copyright, trademark, and patent law.
- 1/31/2018Vorys hosted the webinar, Year in Review: Our Top IP Developments of 2017 on January 31, 2018. Iona Kaiser, Bill Oldach, Tanya Curcio and Laura Geyer from the Vorys IP team presented.
- 10/20/2016Bill Oldach was a speaker at the 2016 DRI Annual Meeting in Boston on October 20, 2016.
- 4/24/2014Vorys partner William Oldach presented "Unauthorized Use of Intellectual Property on the Internet" to the Central Ohio Chapter - Association of Corporate Counsel on April 24, 2014 as part of a CLE focused on Protecting Your Brand.
- 6/30/2021Yesterday, in a 5-4 decision the United States Supreme Court held, in Minerva Surgical, Inc. v. Hologic, Inc. (No. 20-440) (J. Kagan) that, while “well grounded in centuries-old fairness principles,” the doctrine of assignor estoppel has its limits.
- 6/21/2021Today, the United States Supreme Court held, in United States v. Arthrex, Inc. (No. 19-1434), that the scope of authority that has been exercised by Administrative Patent Judges (APJs) who conduct and decide adversarial cases before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) violates the Appointments Clause of the Constitution.
- 4/6/2021On April 5, 2021, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc. Oracle had accused Google of infringing Oracle’s copyright in portions of Java source code for use in Google’s Android smartphones.
- 1/6/2021The United States Supreme Court has a full docket of intellectual property cases before it in 2021.
- 4/27/2020Intellectual Property Alert: Supreme Court Rules Willfulness Not Required to Obtain Profits in Trademark Suits; Increases Risk to Defendants, Potential Recovery to Plaintiffs in Trademark LitigationOn April 23, 2020, the Court ruled that, while it was an important factor for courts to weigh, willfulness could not be an "inflexible precondition" to recovery in a case of infringement of a federal trademark.
- 4/21/2020Intellectual Property Alert: Supreme Court Decision Will Have Significant Impact on Inter Partes Review AppealsIn Thryv, Inc. v. Click-to-Call Technologies, LP, the Supreme Court recently held that a decision by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board to institute an inter partes review (IPR) of a patent cannot be reviewed on appeal, even if the institution of the IPR was in violation of the one-year time bar in the America Invents Act.
- 1/27/20202020 is likely to be a busy and influential year for intellectual property cases before the United States Supreme Court.
- 9/7/2018Intellectual Property Alert: Prior Case Dismissed Without Prejudice Starts Clock Running For IPR FilingA recent decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit changes the landscape for defendants in patent infringement cases, and in certain circumstances may limit their ability to challenge a plaintiff’s patent using the inter partes review (IPR) proceeding established in 2012.
- 9/10/2015In August, the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the federal appellate court with national jurisdiction over patent lawsuits, issued its decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc.
- 8/18/2014Selecting a name or brand for a new product or service involves multiple considerations, some of which are not obvious at first and can haunt the company later. Marketing teams struggle with choosing a name that balances the right message and image to attract the target consumers while informing those consumers of the benefits and functions of the new product or service. During this process it is easy to forget that brands are valuable assets and protectable property under trademark law. Trademarks are the public face of a product or company and hold the reputation and goodwill of the company, typically for many years and even generations. Thus, it is important to select the strongest trademarks to lay a strong foundation for a long-term asset. Following are five considerations, beyond the marketing concerns, to assist in selecting a strong new brand.
- 6/2/2014On June 2, 2014, the Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in the case of Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. (Case No. 12-786), that will have the immediate impact of limiting liability for inducement to infringe under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b) where no party is liable for direct infringement under §271(a). In at least the short-term future, defendants accused in a patent suit of inducing infringement of a method claim, where no one party has performed or controlled the performance of all steps of the method, should have a solid basis for seeking dismissal of that suit for failure to state a cause of action.
- 10/28/2013To expand the scope of their business – either geographically or into additional product categories – many companies license their trademarks. Company "A" sells milk, for instance, and shipping milk far from its source of production may not make economic sense. A restaurateur wishes to open restaurants in other states. Another company has expertise in selling men's clothes, but would like to expand to men's shoes.
- 10/28/2013Specifics about copyright and fair use can be complicated. In this easy-to-navigate chart, we clarify 10 of the most common misconceptions regarding copyright and fair use.
- 9/24/2013The domain world as we know it is about to change. Currently, there are about 24 top-level domains (tld). These are the portion of a web address that appears after the "dot" such as .com or .org. However, there are 1,409 new possibilities on the horizon and an infinite number of future tlds.
- 5/20/2013“Use” of a trademark or service mark under U.S. trademark law is often misunderstood. Even the best-intended trademark owners encounter unexpected, sometimes fatal, barriers in their attempts to register their marks and maintain their registrations.
- 9/13/2012After many attempts, it appears that clothing designs may finally gain protection in the United States. On Monday, September 10th, Senator Charles Schumer re-introduced a new version of what is now called the Innovative Design Protection Act (IDPA) to provide quasi-copyright protection to “fashion designs.”
- 8/14/2012The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office has instituted a pilot program in which it will be pulling some post-registration Declarations of Use and requesting proof of use for additional items listed in the goods/services description, instead of only one in a class, as is the custom now.