Experience

Dolby Laboratories v. Alcatel-Lucent Technologies

We represented Dolby in seeking a declaratory judgment that Dolby’s AC-3 (“Dolby Digital”) technology does not infringe patents that Alcatel-Lucent had asserted against Dolby’s licensees.  Following protracted litigation, in which we obtained discovery sanctions against Alcatel-Lucent on multiple occasions and attorneys’ fees at the conclusion of the case, we successfully obtained orders granting summary judgment of non-infringement on the patents-in-suit.  The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's orders awarding summary judgment and attorney's fees.

Bilski et al v. Kappos (561 U.S. 593 (2010)

Submitted an amicus brief on behalf of Dolby Laboratories for the Supreme Court of the United States in the landmark Bilski ruling relating to business method patents. The Supreme Court relied on and cited for the proposition in overturning the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals opinion and addressing the scope of what is patentable under section 101 of the Patent Act. Specifically, that exclusive adoption of a “machine-or-transformation test” for patent eligibility “would create uncertainty as to the patentability of software, advanced diagnostic medicine techniques, and inventions based on linear programming, data compression, and the manipulation of digital signals.”

UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust v. Sutter Health et al.

Representing UFCW & Employers Benefit Trust in a class action complaint against Sutter Health, alleging that Sutter engages in anticompetitive conduct in violation of the California Cartwright Act and the state Unfair Competition Law. In October 2015, the Court of Appeal for the First Appellate District affirmed the trial court's decision holding that Sutter Health could not compel a union’s benefits trust to arbitrate its putative class claim that the health system overcharged millions of workers. (2015) 241 Cal.App.4th 909.

AGF Reinsurance et al. v. Spar Aerospace LTD

In an action testing the boundaries of industry‑standard contracts, we defended the Canadian manufacturer of a communication satellite that malfunctioned after launch in an action brought by an international consortium of insurance companies that underwrote launch insurance for the mission.

Dr. Bonner

We represented Dr. Bronner’s, a manufacturer of organic skin care products, in an action against several major cosmetic companies asserting that the skin care products of the defendants which were advertised and sold as “organic” were not in fact organic as understood by consumers in California. The critical issue in this action was determination of what constitutes “organic” ingredients in skin care products to justify advertising and presenting those products as “organic.” After several years of litigation in state and federal courts in San Francisco, the matter is currently pending before the USDA.

Microsoft Antitrust Litigation

One of our partners was appointed to be the Special Master for the consumer class action and competitor class action lawsuits filed against Microsoft for its alleged antitrust violations, including the use of technological developments to stifle competition. The consolidated case was pending in the District Court in Baltimore, Maryland.

Plywood Antitrust Litigation

Won a jury verdict for the plaintiff class in the amount of approximately $2 billion in a trial representing all purchasers of plywood in the U.S. and successfully defended the verdict on appeal in the Fifth Circuit arguing against Robert Bork. The case was ultimately settled for $168 million while pending before the U.S. Supreme Court. Reported at 655 F.2d 627 (5th Cir. 1981).

Scheiber v. Dolby

We successfully obtained summary judgment in favor of our client, Dolby Laboratories, Inc., in the Indiana District Court on the issue of bundling United States patents with foreign patents. The judgment was affirmed by the Seventh Circuit, and a writ of certiorari denied by the Supreme Court.

Warner Bros. Records v. SeeqPod

We defended search engine SeeqPod in a copyright infringement matter brought by Warner Brothers Records and several other major music labels in the Central District of California.  Warner is alleging that SeeqPod's technology allows the infringement of copyrighted materials, and is seeking a preliminary injunction.  We are defending the action based on a number of "safe harbors" under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act ("DMCA").