Daniel Purcell
Partner

dpurcell@kvn.com
Tel. (415) 773-6697

Education

UC Berkeley School of Law, J.D., 1997

Amherst College, B.A., magna cum laude, 1992

Clerkships

Hon. David F. Levi
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 1998-1999

Bar Admissions

California

Daniel Purcell

Dan Purcell has extensive experience in a broad range of complex civil and criminal litigation, with particular focuses representing companies and individuals accused of professional misconduct, fraud, or racketeering and in intellectual property matters. He has successfully represented companies—large and small—and individuals in RICO, legal malpractice, copyright, patent, antitrust, trade secret, trademark, and civil rights cases. He also maintains an active pro bono practice and has also successfully represented pro bono clients in matters ranging from habeas corpus petitions to Clean Water Act suits.

Mr. Purcell has tried, arbitrated, and mediated cases in federal and state courts in California, New York, Delaware, and the District of Columbia. He was recently awarded the 2012 California Lawyer magazine Attorney of the Year award for achievements in pro bono work for overturning the unjust conviction of Caramad Conley, a man imprisoned for over 18 years for a crime he did not commit because of undisclosed payments to the critical prosecution witness and perjured testimony by that witness and by a San Francisco homicide inspector. He was also part of the Keker & Van Nest trial team that successfully represented Google Inc. in its potentially billion-dollar copyright and patent litigation against Oracle America, Inc. over the future of Google’s successful Android smartphone operating system, persuading the jury to return a verdict of no liability and zero damages in Google’s favor.

His other recent achievements include winning dismissal at the pleading stage of a RICO lawsuit against a real-estate brokerage firm accused of artificially inflating the value of a series of real properties, obtaining summary judgment in both a federal multi-district and a consolidated California antitrust lawsuit against a major automobile manufacturer, defeating a temporary restraining order sought against 18 individuals accused of trade secret misappropriation in connection with the formation of a new insurance brokerage business, and assisting an individual in obtaining what has been reported as the largest settlement of a wrongful conviction lawsuit ever paid by the City and County of San Francisco.

Cases of Note

Former Employees v. Lucasfilm Ltd.: We advised Lucasfilm Ltd. in an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and then represented Lucasfilm in a series of antitrust class actions brought by former employees of Lucasfilm, Google, Apple, Intel and Pixar. Plaintiffs alleged unlawful agreements related to hiring and employee retention. Plaintiffs and Lucasfilm reached a preliminary settlement of plaintiffs’ claims in July 2013.

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.: We represented Google in a high-stakes patent and copyright war brought by Oracle with billions of dollars at stake. Oracle, which bought the Java programming language by acquiring Sun Microsystems in January 2010, alleged that Google’s Android mobile technology infringed Oracle's Java patents and copyrights. An expert for Oracle estimated Google owed Oracle up to $6 billion in damages for infringement. Our team defended Google against all the patent and copyright claims, and also argued that the damage estimates were wildly inflated. Following repeated rounds of motions and briefing, the judge dismissed the bulk of Oracle’s copyright claims, and at trial the jury rendered a unanimous verdict rejecting all claims of patent infringement. Although the jury decided that Google infringed an Oracle copyright on nine out of millions of lines of source code, the case is considered a sweeping victory for Google, with zero damages.

Suffolk Technologies LLC v. AOL Inc. and Google Inc.: A Virginia federal judge granted our motion for summary judgment on all but one of Suffolk’s patent infringement claims, and issued a Daubert ruling striking the plaintiff’s expert damages opinion in its entirety. Soon after, Suffolk stipulated to invalidity on the last remaining claim. Suffolk had claimed that Google’s Adsense advertising placement technology, which selectively places paid advertisements for a company’s product or service on the Web page of another, used a similar protocol to the one under patent with Suffolk.

Golden State Warriors v. Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum: We represented the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority in a series of disputes with the coliseum's professional basketball team. These disputes, involving tens of millions of dollars, arose over more than ten years and involved miscellaneous claims and cross-claims. Over the course of four arbitrations, we collected $32.25 million for our client.

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.

Plaintiffs v. Automobile Manufacturers: We defended automakers in multi-forum, antitrust litigation involving restrictions on car exports in the late 1990s and early 2000s. Plaintiffs, alleging a broad conspiracy among all major automobile manufacturers and distributors, sought damages of more than $1 billion. We won summary judgment in the lead federal litigation, in several state cases, and in the California state court class action. We also achieved early dismissal of numerous state court actions.

Plaintiffs v. Law Firm: We defended a law firm in a legal malpractice lawsuit connected to an underlying patent infringement action. The case involved complex intellectual property issues, in addition to issues relating to legal representation and performance. The plaintiff sought $75 million, plus trebling for willful patent infringement and punitive damages. However we resolved the case for a settlement of only $800,000.

Appeal of Sanctions Order: On behalf of an international law firm, we successfully appealed a sanctions order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, persuading the appellate court to reverse the sanctions and end the case rather than remanding it to the trial court for further proceedings.

Awards and Honors

  • Best Lawyers in America, Intellectual Property Litigation, 2013-2014
  • California Lawyer of the Year, California Lawyer, 2012
  • Northern California Super Lawyer, General Litigation, 2010-2013
  • Executive committee member, BASF Legal Malpractice Section
  • Articles editor, California Law Review, UC Berkeley School of Law
  • Champion, James Patterson McBaine Honors Moot Court Competition

Publications and Speaking Engagements

  • "Doing the Right Thing:  Practical Tips to Help Newer Lawyers Act Ethically and Avoid Liability," Bar Association of San Francisco, 2012
  • "Litigating a Trade Secret Case from Inception Through Trial," Bridgeport CLE, 2011
  • "Why Lawyers Get Sued (and How to Stay Out of Trouble)," Bar Association of San Francisco, 2011
  • "Pro-Institution Movement: America's Dwindling Access to the Federal Courts," Daily Journal, 2011
  • “The Public Right to Precedent: A Theory and Rejection of Settlement Conditioned on Vacatur,” California Law Review, 1997

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.: We represented Google in a high-stakes patent and copyright war brought by Oracle with billions of dollars at stake. Oracle, which bought the Java programming language by acquiring Sun Microsystems in January 2010, alleged that Google’s Android mobile technology infringed Oracle's Java patents and copyrights. An expert for Oracle estimated Google owed Oracle up to $6 billion in damages for infringement. Our team defended Google against all the patent and copyright claims, and also argued that the damage estimates were wildly inflated. Following repeated rounds of motions and briefing, the judge dismissed the bulk of Oracle’s copyright claims, and at trial the jury rendered a unanimous verdict rejecting all claims of patent infringement. Although the jury decided that Google infringed an Oracle copyright on nine out of millions of lines of source code, the case is considered a sweeping victory for Google, with zero damages.

Suffolk Technologies LLC v. AOL Inc. and Google Inc.: A Virginia federal judge granted our motion for summary judgment on all but one of Suffolk’s patent infringement claims, and issued a Daubert ruling striking the plaintiff’s expert damages opinion in its entirety. Soon after, Suffolk stipulated to invalidity on the last remaining claim. Suffolk had claimed that Google’s Adsense advertising placement technology, which selectively places paid advertisements for a company’s product or service on the Web page of another, used a similar protocol to the one under patent with Suffolk.

Wyeth v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.: Impax Laboratories, Inc. asked us to take over this patent case midway through the discovery process. We completed discovery, handled all of the depositions, and achieved a very favorable result for our client.

Plaintiff v. Internet Search Engine: We defended a leading Internet search engine against a cybersquatting class action brought by trademark holders. The plaintiffs complained that third parties had created websites with names similar to their marks, and were hosting ads for their competitors through our client's AdWords service. The case involved cutting-edge questions of trademark law and federal procedure. We defeated the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, removing nearly all of the financial risk for our client.

Broadcom Corporation v. Telecommunications Company: In a landmark patent case before the International Trade Commission (ITC), we represented Broadcom, a leading semiconductor company, against a telecommunications company, various wireless network providers, and handset manufacturers. After a trial and the first live hearing before the full commission in 20 years, we obtained an order from the ITC preventing the infringing chips from being imported into the U.S.

Wireless Company v. Semiconductor Company: In this trade secrets case, our client's rogue employee took a disk from the plaintiff which contained highly sensitive documents. We settled the case favorably for our client.

Golden State Warriors v. Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum: We represented the Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority in a series of disputes with the coliseum's professional basketball team. These disputes, involving tens of millions of dollars, arose over more than ten years and involved miscellaneous claims and cross-claims. Over the course of four arbitrations, we collected $32.25 million for our client.

Plaintiffs v. Law Firm: We defended a law firm in a legal malpractice lawsuit connected to an underlying patent infringement action. The case involved complex intellectual property issues, in addition to issues relating to legal representation and performance. The plaintiff sought $75 million, plus trebling for willful patent infringement and punitive damages. However we resolved the case for a settlement of only $800,000.

Plaintiff v. Telecommunications Company: We won a complete victory in a multi-million dollar contract dispute involving information-technology services.

Appeal of Sanctions Order: On behalf of an international law firm, we successfully appealed a sanctions order to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, persuading the appellate court to reverse the sanctions and end the case rather than remanding it to the trial court for further proceedings.

Caramad Conley v. State of California: In this pro bono habeas corpus case, we overturned the unconstitutional conviction of Caramad Conley, who had been wrongly sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole for a double homicide he did not commit. We discovered thousands of dollars of undisclosed payments and other benefits given to a the linchpin prosecution witness by the San Francisco police, none of which had ever been disclosed to Mr. Conley or his trial counsel. We used this evidence to convince California Superior Court Judge Marla Miller to vacate Mr. Conley’s conviction. The State elected not to appeal Judge Miller’s ruling or retry Mr. Conley, and instead released him from custody after 18 years of unlawful imprisonment. For his efforts on Mr. Conley’s behalf, lead trial counsel Dan Purcell was awarded the 2012 California Lawyer magazine Attorney of the Year Award for achievements in pro bono work.

John J. Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco: We pursued John Tennison’s civil rights claim against the City and County of San Francisco and the police and prosecutor responsible for Mr. Tennison’s wrongful conviction. We had previously represented Mr. Tennison in his habeas corpus case, where we unearthed exculpatory evidence hidden by the police which proved Mr. Tennison’s innocence - including the taped confession of another man. As a result, we won an order reversing Mr. Tennison’s conviction, after which he was set free. After several years of hard-fought litigation, we settled the civil rights case for $4.6 million. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, it was the largest amount the city has ever paid to a wrongly convicted person.

Developed by Tenrec