John P. Padro | White & Case LLP International Law Firm, Global Law Practice
John Padro
John Padro

John P. Padro

Associate, New York

T +1 212 819 7982

E [email protected]


John P. Padro is a senior associate in the New York office. His practice focuses on patent litigation and the trial of complex intellectual property disputes. He represents high-profile technology, biomedical/technology and pharmaceuticals clients in all phases of litigation, including appeals. John also provides general intellectual property strategy counseling as well as intellectual property transactional services.

Prior to joining White & Case, John worked at WiPower, Inc., where he developed and commercialized WiPower's proprietary wireless power system. John also advised the company on various corporate matters. During his tenure, John doubled the size of WiPower's intellectual property portfolio and advised the company in its sale to Qualcomm.

John has significant experience litigating patent disputes. His recent experience includes representative matters for Google, Abiomed, Pfizer and UCB before district courts throughout the United States as well as the Federal Circuit. John has also advised these clients in contractual negotiations relating to intellectual property.

Bars and Courts

  • Florida State Bar
  • New York State Bar
  • US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • US District Court for the Southern District of New York


  • JD, Columbia University School of Law
  • BSEE and BA, University of Florida


  • English
  • Spanish


Representing Abiomed in two patent litigation matters filed in the U.S. District Court for Massachusetts. Abiomed is alleged to infringe seven patents owned by Maquet through Abiomed's sale of the Impella intravascular heart pumps. This case is ongoing. (Maquet Cardiovascular LLC v. Abiomed, Inc. et al., 16-cv-10914, 17-cv-12311).

Representation of a pharmaceutical conglomerate in an antitrust matter filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia by various class action plaintiffs. Plaintiffs alleged various antitrust violations associated with the procurement of a patent relating to a prescription drug. We obtained a favorable settlement for our client on the eve of a summary judgment ruling.

Representation of Google in a patent infringement matter filed in the U.S. District Court for the Delaware by VideoShare. VideoShare alleged that Google infringed two patents through its offering of YouTube. We invalidated both patents because they lacked patentable subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101. (VideoShare, LLC v. Google Inc. et al., 13-cv-990).

Representation of UCB in a declaratory judgment patent infringement action against Yeda Research and Development in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. We successfully obtained summary judgment of no infringement; a decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The litigation involved UCB's product Cimzia®, a humanized antibody that targets the receptor TNF-alpha and approved for the treatment of Crohn's disease and rheumatoid arthritis, among other indications. (UCB, Inc. v. Yeda Research and Development Co. Ltd., 14-cv-1038).

Representation of Google in a patent infringement matter filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware by British Telecommunications. British Telecom alleged that Google infringed six patents through its offering of various location-based and content-access features in many of Google's mobile and desktop products. After obtaining summary judgment of noninfringement of one of the asserted patents, the matter resolved favorably for our client. (British Telecommunications plc v. Google Inc., 11-cv-1249).


  • Patent Law in 2016: Seeking Clarity in the Wake of Reform, Practising Law Institute 11th Annual Patent Law Institute, pp. 291-307, March 2017, (co-author with Scott Weingaertner, So Yeon Choe and Rahul Sarkar)
  • Federal Circuit Opens Door to New Defense to Inducing Infringement, White & Case Client Alert, July 2013, (co-author with Kevin X. McGann and Warren S. Heit)
  • CLS Bank v. Alice Corp. Further Muddies §101 Patent Eligibility, White & Case Client Alert, May 2013, (co-author with Kevin X. McGann and Warren S. Heit)