Interview with Dr. James Woods - Focusing Your Business

Introduction:
Dr. James Woods joined UHY Advisors FLVS last summer and is a Managing Director in the IP Litigation group based in Houston. Jim has earned his Ph.D. in Finance from the Mays Business School at Texas A&M University, and his MBA, Finance and Banking and BSBA from the University of Missouri. He has also been an Adjunct Professor at the University of Houston-Victoria. He is a Certified Licensing Professional. Prior to joining UHY, Jim was the Practice Leader of the Economic Advisory Services practice group (the FLVS equivalent) for the Houston office of Grant Thornton.

Over the past fifteen years, Jim has had a broad general practice, assisting clients with fraud investigations, valuation projects, intellectual asset management, and litigation matters. He is concentrating he practice now on intellectual property matters.

About what are you deeply passionate?
I am passionate about understanding how things work. I am one of those people that like those strange cable television shows like “How Things Work” because they explain how all sorts of common everyday items are manufactured. As a financial economist, I am also interested in how people work, how they make decisions. These interests translate well to IP litigation since it is often about analyzing in detail how things work and then applying economic theories to determine their value.

How did you come to that realization?
Finding my passion was a long journey. When I finished my PhD in finance, I graduated into one of the worst markets for new Ph.D.s. In prior years, there were usually approximately 100 new Ph.D.s applying for 120 to 150 job openings. The market always cleared and most people got to choose which position they would accept. However, when I graduated there were over 200 Ph.D.s applying for fewer than 100 jobs. Getting a job became competitive and the chances of landing your desired position decreased dramatically. This situation forced me to consider options beyond an academic career. Through fortuity and perhaps a bit on purpose, I happened to run into a professional at Price Waterhouse. After we spoke for awhile and he listened to what I was interested in, he suggested that I look into the Dispute Analysis and Corporate Recovery Practice “DACR” at PW.

I did a hard analysis of my future. If I accepted an academic position, it was unlikely that I could be a consultant, but if I accepted the consulting position and it did not work out, it was likely that I could land an academic position if the market improved. Also, quite frankly, the consulting work seemed more appealing. So I decided to accept the DACR opportunity at Price Waterhouse with the possibility of going back into academics if this did not work out.

At the time I thought I wanted to go into the bankruptcy practice because it was hot at the time and seemed like a good match for my background. I soon realized I did not like that practice area at all. I did not like to develop the financial scenarios that then dictated that I had to fire people I was working with and had gotten to know.

One day while in the Houston office, I was walking past an office where a partner and a couple of associates were talking about a case. The case involved how pagers worked. As it turns out, I knew something about this and had the gumption to stick my head into the office. I mentioned that I knew a little about how pagers work. They invited me in and the next thing I knew I was talking to a Motorola engineer in charge of pager design and development about how pagers conserve battery power. And just like that I was involved in IP. My personal passion for how things work and my pursuit of understanding in that area, along with my willingness to stick my head in that door, opened me up to what I found was a place for my personal passion to be exploited in my professional life.

I worked on several IP matters, but did many non-IP engagements. Ultimately, I was recruited to join Grant Thornton to be the practice leader of the EAS practice, which is basically the same as FLVS here. I tried to personally find IP cases to work on, but as practice leader I was involved in and at least oversaw all sorts of other cases – FCPA, Fraud, and Commercial Litigation of all kinds. I found that I really was not very passionate about being responsible for all of these different types of matters. To me, they all came with a lot of baggage, administrative requirements and effort. They were outside my personal expertise and so I had to do a lot of research to catch up, largely in areas in which I was not terribly interested.

The opportunity to concentrate on IP and work with a team dedicated to litigation support was a strong appeal and had a great deal of influence in my decision to join UHY. Even though I am concentrating my efforts on IP matters, I will still accept litigation cases if they come along, but I am focusing all of my marketing efforts on IP cases.

Why IP cases?
I grew up in a time when computer technology was just reaching the public and over time, this technology has bled into everything. I have always been interested in technology and this interest allowed me to understand the history and the process of growth from early computers to current more complex systems we use today.

IP was the connection point between my personal passion, figuring out how things work, and my professional passions for analyzing and presenting the financial and economic value of things.

To reach the top of that profession you have to become a true expert in that area. What have you done to make yourself a true expert in the area of IP Litigation damages analysis?
I read. I read a lot. I read everything that has to do with IP. For example there has been a big push in the Congress to reform IP laws. Even though this reform is only partially related to IP damages, I have followed the entire reform process. To be a true expert, you have to have a real depth of understanding of both IP law and the application of lost profits, reasonable royalty, economics and valuation theories related to intellectual property. I work hard to develop a strong understanding of the financial and legal issues related to IP and am willing to dig into everything I can find on these topics.

You were leading the entire EAS group at Grant Thornton. Why would you leave that position to join UHY?
This was truly a very difficult decision. My post-doctoral decisions were similar. What are my options? Where is Grant Thornton going? What is my future here? What is most interesting to me?

I could have stayed at Grant Thornton. While I was there we tripled in size. The firm liked me and supported me, but as the practice and the firm evolved I realized I would never have been able to focus on what I really wanted to do.

As GT grew, the number of conflicts increased. Grant Thornton management decided they were no longer interested in the $150,000 litigation case. They wanted to push the practice toward the big, multimillion dollar investigations and away from commercial litigation. Commercial litigation created conflicts and issues for all of the other areas of the practice, including audit and tax. They instead pushed for a full-suite approach to corporations, including compliance and international investigations. That meant that there could be no litigation opposing either a current client or any client they might consider going after in the future.

Once I came to the understanding that I could remain practice leader and not do what I loved to do, or find an opportunity where I could go back to doing the work I loved, IP damages litigation, the decision was much easier.

Do clients hire firms or professionals?
In litigation, they hire the professional because they are looking for an expert to help with their case. They want someone who knows what he is doing, but also someone they can work with. Having the support of an organization is important, but when it comes to IP litigation, they hire passionate experts.

So now you are here and working to focus your practice in the area of IP Litigation Damages. How are you going about doing that?
It has been rather easy. With Ron Vollmar and Wayne Hoeberlein, both already recognized IP litigation damages experts with UHY Advisors, there is a strong emphasis in the area and a lot of passion in the practice group. All of the cases I have been hired on as an expert for at FLVS, but one, have been IP litigation cases. It is good to know that if cases outside my area of expertise come in I have very strong group of professionals I can refer the work to. That is an advantage of being with a firm that is focused on driving expertise like UHY Advisors FLVS.

When you meet with attorneys, how does that meeting usually go?
There are different types of people; some are all business and want to talk about the case at hand and nothing else and others want to become “friends” first. You have to roll with the conversation and be willing to carry the discussion whichever way the potential clients needs it to go. Most important, make sure that you “connect” with the person.

UHY Advisors has a strong Business Development team and they are great for setting up introductions and meetings. That is certainly a huge help, but networking, meeting people and securing opportunities is ultimately up to me and every professional and I take that seriously. I attend the HIPLA, LES and other organizational luncheons where attorneys I need to meet will be. I am not uncomfortable asking one person to introduce me to other people and I work hard to reciprocate. Again, the key is to establish and develop strong relationships. Be genuinely interested what people have to say. Asking them about their services and what they are looking for. Take a genuine interest in other people and figure out how you can help them.

Advice on Building a Practice.
This is a tremendous time to access knowledge. My daughter is 10. She was watching Seinfeld and asked if Julia Louis Dreyfuss was still alive. My wife and I were taken aback until we looked at the scene. No cell phones. Telephones on wires. Pay phones. No computers at all, much less lap tops. The technology is so dramatically different in just the last 15 years. It must have looked to her like something from the Dark Ages.

We, as professionals, need to adapt quickly. We have to take advantage of new technologies and access to information. At any moment you can read the most powerful experts in the world in your field of interest in just seconds. Just be curious and read everything you can find in the area of your passion.

How important is the past?
In most high tech areas, knowledge of the past is not that important. Things change too quickly.

But in the law, history can be important. If you are interested in an area of the law, you really should go back and look at the development of the law to uncover the underlying assumptions and the issues that arose over time to gain an understanding as to how the caselaw has evolved and why it is as it is today. Ron Vollmar and I recently published an article that required us to go back into the 1800s to trace the evolution of the Entire Market Value Theory. We uncovered some interesting aspects of its origin and the twists that occurred in the caselaw and legislation that led to the current interpretation. We were able to apply that to some recent cases and explain that maybe the justices were trying to return to previous definitions of the Entire Market Value Rule rather than develop new definitions. Incidentally, this article was published as the feature in two very prominent IP journals, IP Litigator and The Licensing Journal. It really helps to understand why the law is the way it is today and you can only do that by reading about the past.

Find your passion, which involves the tasks and concepts you love. Then find that vocation in which you can do those things. Finally, make the hard choices to focus your practice on what you love to do most. Because you love the work, you will become an expert, and that combined with passion and a genuine interest in helping people, leads to opportunities to do what you love.