Michael MacWilliams's diverse litigation practice focuses on the resolution of complex commercial, product liability, and intellectual property disputes, including such areas as copyright infringement, patent infringement, misappropriation of trade secrets and related business torts, and securities and shareholder disputes. He chairs Venable's E-Discovery Task Force and leads the Commercial Litigation Practice Group in the firm’s Baltimore office.

Mr. MacWilliams brings to Venable's clients a proven track record of achieving client goals in a broad range of commercial, product liability, and intellectual property disputes, including first- and second-chair experience (jury and non-jury) in state and federal trial courts and before arbitration tribunals across the country. His technical background and substantial e-discovery experience enable him to fashion and implement the effective, functional, and cost-efficient e-discovery strategies that today's complex litigation environment demands. He is the author of the chapter on "Rule 30(b)(6) Depositions Directed to ESI Issues" in Managing E-Discovery and ESI: From Pre-Litigation Through Trial (Paul W. Grimm, et al., eds., 2011).

Significant Matters
Along with Venable partners Paul Strain and David Heubeck, Mr. MacWilliams obtained a multi-million dollar willful infringement verdict in an electric fireplace patent dispute tried to a jury in federal court in Chicago.

Mr. MacWilliams has litigated and negotiated the settlement of disputes concerning software licensing and related issues. He was lead counsel in a software licensing and copyright suit involving complex and novel "work for hire" issues, ultimately settling the case on terms that resolved competing claims to ownership of the software in favor of Venable's client.

Mr. MacWilliams served as lead counsel in a patent infringement case involving temperature-controlled liquid dispensers.

Mr. MacWilliams was instrumental in obtaining a multi-million dollar counterclaim award in a trade secret case involving polymer chemistry aspects of a commercial construction material. He spearheaded the expert chemist witness program, including the deposition and trial cross-examination of the opposing expert chemist, following which the jury concluded that the Plaintiff/Counterdefendant had directly and wrongfully copied our client's proprietary product.