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. 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. Click here to read the Recorder's feature with lead partner Jeffrey Chanin.
Department of Justice v. Major League Baseball Players Association
We scored a sweeping victory for the Major League Baseball Players Association in its high-profile battle with the U.S. government. During a federal investigation of Bay Area Lab Cooperative for suspected steroid distribution, federal agents obtained a search warrant for records pertaining to 10 baseball players. When the warrant was executed at a testing facility in Long Beach, however, the government seized and promptly reviewed the drug testing records of hundreds of players in Major League Baseball. Agents also seized urine samples from samples from a facility in Las Vegas.
We successfully convinced three federal judges that the government had violated the players’ Fourth Amendment rights. We then went on to argue the case twice before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit—first before a three-judge panel and then before an 11-judge en banc panel of the court. In 2009, the en banc panel ruled that federal investigators unlawfully seized drug testing records and urine samples of the athletes. In 2010, the court issued a revised opinion, upholding its finding in favor of the ball players. This victory helped lead partner Elliot Peters earn the Recorder's "Attorney of the Year" award.
Apple Inc. v. HTC Corp.
We are lead counsel for HTC Corporation—one of the world’s largest manufacturers of handheld devices—in a high-stakes case against Apple Corporation. In 2010, Apple charged HTC with infringement of 10 Apple patents at the International Trade Commission (ITC). We led HTC's defense team, which includes two Am Law 100 firms, from the outset of the case through the three-week trial in April 2011. Over the recommendation of an ITC Office of Unfair Import Investigations staff attorney, who argued at trial that HTC does not violate any valid Apple patents, the judge ruled that HTC infringed two patents. We will vigorously fight those remaining two patents through an appeal before the ITC Commissioners, who make the final decision in the ITC stage of the investigation.
We also represent HTC as a complainant in a separate ITC investigation. In that case, HTC has asserted its own patents against Apple related to core smartphone user interface and power management technologies. During a seven-day trial in May 2011, we argued that Apple’s iPhone, iPad and iPod products infringed HTC’s patents and should be excluded from import into the United States. According to media reports, half of Apple’s most recent quarterly revenue—approximately $24.6 billion—can be attributed to iPhone and iPhone-related products. The administrative law judge is expected to make an initial determination in September 2011.
United States v. Michael Shanahan Jr...... ....
In a criminal options backdating case, we secured a dismissal before trial for Michael Shanahan Jr. NM , who served on Engineered Support Systems Inc's board of directors and was a member of the company's compensation committee. We also represented the client in a parallel options backdating action brought by the Securities and Exchange Commission. After eight days of trial testimony, a federal judge in Missouri granted our motion for judgment as a matter of law. Legal insiders called Judge Hamilton’s ruling on Keker & Van Nest’s motion for judgment (a so-called JMOL motion) “exceptionally rare” in cases brought by the SEC. In 2011, the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit upheld the dismissal of the suit.
The Daily Journal interviewed lead partner Stuart Gasner about his victory, and the American Lawyer named him the Litigator of the Week. The Daily Jo
In re NCAA Name & Likeness Litigation
We are representing Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) in a right-of-publicity case brought by a putative national class of current and former student athletes. The athletes sued EA, the National Collegiate Athletic Association, and the Collegiate Licensing Company, claiming that EA improperly used their likenesses and biographical information in its NCAA Football and NCAA Basketball video games. The case is currently on appeal at the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. At issue is what legal test the circuit will adopt when balancing the right of publicity against EA's first amendment rights.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. Semiconductor Company
We represented a leading semiconductor company in a patent trial brought in the Eastern District of Texas. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) asserted patent infringement claims against more than a dozen of the world's leading technology companies, including our client. CSIRO contended the defendants' Wi-Fi products infringed on CSIRO's patent, and sought nine to ten figure royalty payments. A week into the jury trial, we reached a favorable settlement with CSIRO, and the remaining parties also settled favorably.
John J. Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco
Following our representation of John 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, we pursued Mr. Tennison’s civil rights claim against the City and County of San Francisco and the police and prosecutor responsible for his wrongful conviction. 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.