Judge William G. Young has served as a judge in the District of Massachusetts since 1985. From 1999-2005 he served as Chief Judge. Prior to his service as a Federal judge he served on the Superior Court of Massachusetts.
His court bio can be found here.
A somewhat more detailed bio can be found here.
Judge Young is very dedicated to legal education. He teaches a mutli-week course offered through Massachusetts Continuing Legal Education entitled "On Trial With Judge Young" where students are invited into his chambers to learn about his approach to case management and advocacy; a course description may be found here. He has taught law school classes and regularly holds hearings for active cases at Boston area law schools. A collection of his lectures is available in book form entitled "Reflections of a Trial Judge," available here.
Judicial Philosophy
Judge Young is one of the faster judges on the court and typically schedules cases for trial within 18 months. Parties moving for a preliminary injunction / TRO are expected to have marshalled their evidence prior to requesting preliminary relief and should be prepared for a quick hearing.
He is known for his creative approach to resolving disputes, frequently finding his own middle ground between the parties, particularly with claim construction.
His opinions are not without wit. One of my personal favorites is a copyright opinion dealing with business training materials: Situation Mgmt. Sys. v. ASP Consulting Group, 535 F. Supp. 2d 231 (D. Mass. 2008), vacated, 560 F.3d 53 (1st Cir. 2009).
Judge Young's trial days are typically from 9 a.m. to 1 p.m. with a 25 minute break. The parties are kept to a pre-determined trial length with time kept by the court.
Intellectual Property Cases
Judge Young is well known for his experience in patent matters, having handling many high profile cases. He is a frequent speaker on patent issues at national conferences and sat by designation with the Federal Circuit in March 2008.
Judge Young has a unique approach to trying patent cases, influenced by then Professor, now Federal Circuit Judge, Kimberly Moore's article entitled Judges, Juries, and Patent Cases--An Empirical Peek Inside the Black Box, 99 Mich. L. Rev. 365 (2000). Judge Young divides the case into three parts, first validity, then infringement, and finally damages. Each phase has its own opening statements and is limited to evidence directed to that phase. In the first phase the accused infringer has the burden of proof and therefore goes first. The patentee goes first in the second and third phases. The case concludes with an omnibus closing directed to the entire case and then goes to the jury.
Comments