Bill Hicks’ practice focuses on complex business and intellectual property litigation. Mr. Hicks has represented a range of clients in the technology sector, and was an active member of the trial team that achieved victory in one of the largest trade secrets cases ever tried in California.
As part of his active pro bono practice, Mr. Hicks participated in the defense of two federal capital cases and first-chaired a trial resulting in the grant of asylum (based on sexual orientation) to an undocumented Mexican worker who had been slated for removal due to a minor drug conviction.
Cases of Note
Plaintiffs v. Pharmaceutical Drug Co.: In a multi-district class action, plaintiffs have challenged a drug company's product label under California's unfair competition law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The case is currently pending.
Broadcom Corporation v. SiRF Technology and CSR: We served as trial counsel for Broadcom, one of the world’s leading semiconductor companies, against SiRF, a GPS chip manufacturer, and its parent CSR. Broadcom asserted multiple patents covering graphics, video processing, and digital signal processing techniques, as well as claims arising under the Lanham Act and unfair competition laws. This case, along with other actions between the parties, was settled shortly before trial on terms that were very favorable to Broadcom.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company v. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation: We represented the world’s leading semiconductor foundry, TSMC, against China’s leading semiconductor manufacturer, SMIC, in the largest trade secret misuse case ever tried. SMIC owed its existence to technology stolen from our client, and faced our damages claim of $2 billion, which would have exceeded SMIC's entire market value. The parties produced nearly 18 million pages of documents and conducted 266 days of deposition in the U.S. and in Asia. Following a jury verdict in favor of our client, SMIC agreed to pay $200 million in cash and approximately $130 million of its company stock. Ultimately TSMC's goal was to protect its intellectual property, not shut down its competitor, and so settled for far less than it could have recovered. For foreign companies that market their goods and services in the U.S., this case established that California’s trade secret statute will protect the intellectual property essential to those goods and services, even if the theft occurred in Asia.
Awards and Honors
- Order of the Coif, 2004
- Scholarly Writing Award for "Background Study for the Third Colloquium on Challenges in International Refugee Law," University of Michigan Law School, 2004
Professional Affiliations
- Intellectual Property Section, American Bar Association
- Business, Intellectual Property Sections, California State Bar
Publications
- “Is There a Subjective Element in the Refugee Convention’s Requirement of ‘Well-Founded Fear,’” Michigan Journal of International Law, 2005. Co-authored with Prof. James Hathaway