Dan Jackson specializes in legal writing, analysis, and oral argument for every stage of litigation - from the initial pleadings, through summary judgment, motions in limine, post-trial briefings, and all stages of appeals. Mr. Jackson also has extensive experience briefing and arguing claim-construction issues in patent cases.
Mr. Jackson received his J.D. from Yale Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of the Yale Journal on Regulation. Mr. Jackson received a B.A. in philosophy and an M.A. in linguistics from the University of Southern California, spending a year studying in Zimbabwe and Kenya. Mr. Jackson then served in the Peace Corps in Sri Lanka, returning to study cognitive science and linguistics at the University of California, San Diego, where he was a National Institutes of Health fellow.
Cases of Note
Acacia Media Technology v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC: We defended Comcast Cable Communications, LLC as part of a large joint-defense group handling patent infringement claims related to video-on-demand services. The plaintiff, Acacia Media Technology, sought hundreds of millions in royalties from more than 40 cable TV, satellite TV, and Internet streaming companies, alleging its patents covered virtually all transmission of compressed digital video or audio files. After extensive claim-construction proceedings, U.S. District Judge James Ware held that the patents were invalid and granted summary judgment for our client and the other defendants. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that judgment.
Plaintiff v. Real Estate Brokerage Firm: We are defending a real estate brokerage firm and several of its subsidiaries in a series of commercial disputes relating to the valuation and sale of real estate. The cases involve important questions regarding the scope of liability under a federal statute and the laws of various states. Although the cases were filed in early 2009, so far none have advanced beyond the pleading stage. Most notably, we successfully moved to dismiss the lead federal case in January 2010, and a second motion to dismiss an amended complaint is pending.
Middle East Distributor v. Fashion Retailer: In a suit raising novel issues of franchise law, we represented a national fashion retailer in a breach of contract suit filed by our client's former Middle East distributor. A federal San Francisco judge granted our summary judgment motion. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order, dismissing the case in our client’s favor.
Plaintiff v. California Department of Corrections: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appointed our firm to represent a sexual-harassment victim whose case was dismissed on summary judgment. We were able to obtain a reversal.
Plaintiff v. Semiconductor Company: We represented a semiconductor company in a landmark trade secret misappropriation case. Our client sought more than $100 million in damages and an injunction. We won an interlocutory appeal at an early stage of the case, making this the first appellate case in California to address the circumstances in which a trade secret plaintiff may obtain pretrial discovery. We settled the case for a confidential amount while a jury trial was underway. This case remains one of the leading California precedents on this issue.
Plaintiff v. Alameda County District Attorney's Office, Tom Orloff: We successfully represented the Alameda County District Attorney Tom Orloff and the District Attorney's Office, who were accused of discriminating against women. Working with top female attorneys in the D.A.’s office, we proved the plaintiff’s allegations were unfounded, and secured summary judgment.
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
Fellow, National Institutes of Health
Edward J. McFetridge American Inn of Court