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
Netflix, Inc. v. Rovi: We defended our clients Netflix, Inc. and Roku Corporation in a U.S. International Trade Commission complaint filed by Rovi Corporation. The complaint accused our clients, along with Mitsubishi Electric Corp., LG Electronics Inc., and Vizio Inc., of infringing several patents related to interactive program guides. The complaint sought an order banning television and media-player makers from entering the U.S. By the time of the trial, the other defendants had settled and our clients faced four patents. We successfully defended our clients at trial, with the ALJ finding one of the patents invalid and none of the patents infringed, as well as no actionable importation or available remedy. The ITC confirmed there was no violation. Rovi then pursued the matter in District Court with three of the same patents used in the ITC investigation as well as two additional patents. We won summary judgment of invalidity under Alice on all five asserted patents.
Plaintiff v. Real Estate Brokerage Firm: On behalf of a real estate brokerage firm and several of its subsidiaries, we successfully moved to dismiss RICO claims relating to the valuation and sale of real estate, and successfully defended that victory before the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the dismissal without leave to amend in a published opinion.
San Diego County Water Authority v. Metropolitan Water District of Southern California: We won the year's largest plaintiff's award in California for the San Diego County Water Authority in its long-running fight with the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). MWD is the regional water wholesaler for most of Southern California. San Diego sued MWD for charging San Diego inflated and illegal water transportation rates, and breaching a contract between the parties. After a three-week bench trial that played out over the course of fifteen months, the court found that MWD’s rates violate numerous California statutory and constitutional provisions, and awarded our client $188 million in contract damages, plus $43 million in prejudgment interest, and other declaratory relief. The victory was the year's largest plaintiff's award in California.
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.
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 defended the Alameda County District Attorney and the District Attorney's Office from accusations of gender discrimination. 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 TSMC against China's then-leading semiconductor manufacturer, SMIC, in the largest trade secret misuse case tried to date. SMIC owed its very existence to technology stolen from our client. Following a jury verdict on liability in favor of TSMC, SMIC agreed to pay $200 million in cash and approximately $130 million of its company stock. The case serves as precedent for the strong protection afforded by California's trade secret statute, even where the actual theft occurred in Asia.
Awards and Honors
- Top Defense Verdict, Daily Journal, 2016. We used the U.S. Supreme Court decision in Alice Corp. Pty. Ltd. v. CLS Bank International to prove that patents in lawsuits against Facebook Inc. and LinkedIn Corp. were invalid based on subject matter ineligibility.
- Fellow, National Institutes of Health
- Edward J. McFetridge American Inn of Court