Will Mosley is a litigation associate in Kilpatrick Townsend’s Silicon Valley office. As a member of the firm's Patent Litigation Team, Mr. Mosley has engaged in patent infringement lawsuits spanning a diverse field of technologies, including semiconductor processing, HDD manufacture and testing, DRAM, action cameras, RAID storage systems, digital rights management, Wi-Fi, and universal remote controllers.
In addition to patent litigation, Mr. Mosley has litigated disputes concerning trademark and copyright infringement; trade secret misappropriation; and business disputes concerning the sale and licensing of technology. Mr. Mosley’s litigation experience spans numerous federal district court jurisdictions, California state courts, and the International Trade Commission.
Mr. Mosley is an active member of the Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Silicon Valley (APABA Silicon Valley) and currently serves as co-Vice President of Internal Affairs. Mr. Mosley also co-chairs the organization’s Communications Committee.
Mr. Mosley has been recognized as a Northern California “Rising Star” in Intellectual Property Litigation by Super Lawyers Magazine every year from 2013 through 2018.
Representing Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt’s two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace’s protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes. Atlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corp., et al., No. 11-09973 (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 1, 2011).
Served as lead counsel for Logitech, a global leader in the development of innovative personal peripherals, in defense and counterclaims of a patent infringement action involving universal remote controls. Case settled. Universal Elec., Inc. v. Logitech, Inc., et al., No. 11-1056 (C.D. Cal. filed July 15, 2011).
Representing plaintiff-patentee Racing Optics in patent infringement action against competitor Aevoe and its Moshi-brand touch screen protectors in D. Nevada. Argued Markman hearing in October 2016, with trial expected in November 2017, with related actions before the USPTO.
Insights View All
University of California, Hastings College of the Law, J.D. (2011)
Hastings Law Journal Vol. 62, Senior Symposium Editor (2010-2011)
Hastings Intellectual Property Association, Officer and Co-Founder (2010-2011)
Asian Pacific American Law Students Association, Officer (2009-2010)
University of California, San Diego, B.A., Psychology (2008) cum laude
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Silicon Valley
Board of Directors (2013-Present)
Co-Vice President of Internal Affairs (2014-2016, 2018)
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.