practice areas

Our practice focuses on diverse areas of complex civil litigation including intellectual property (patent, trademark and copyright), professional liability, privacy, contract and commercial matters and class actions.

We recognize that different clients have different needs, and we don’t take a one-size-fits-all approach.  We start every engagement by asking our clients to define what constitutes success for them.  The answer to that question allows us to tailor our litigation strategy to our clients’ specific situations.  For some clients and cases, the goal may be to win the case – period.  For smaller, startup clients facing bet-the-company litigation against bigger, better-funded competitors, the cost of litigation may itself threaten the company’s continued viability.  In those situations, we may try to get traction on critical issues at the outset of the case while aggressively containing costs through proactive discovery management.  Or we may put more resources into an offensive strategy, targeting a larger opponent’s much larger revenue base.  Other clients may simply want to settle as cheaply as possible. In those cases, we try to figure out the pressure points for settlement without getting distracted by expensive side-shows.  Our lawyers’ experience allows us to design and execute on this strategic approach to litigation.


Our lawyers have extensive patent litigation experience.

We are trial counsel for Genentech in fending off a string of challenges to Genentech’s Cabilly patent, which generates hundreds of millions in licensing revenue.  We also represented Guidewire Software in a bet-the-company case against Accenture Global Services concerning software automating insurance-related tasks.  We prevailed at summary judgment on invalidity grounds, an outcome affirmed by the Federal Circuit. 

Mark teaches patent law at Stanford, has written seven books and over 100 articles in the field (which have been cited more than 130 times by federal courts, including five times by the U.S. Supreme Court).  We represented Sunlink Corporation, a leading provider of solar power deployment systems, in patent litigation against a much larger competitor.  Having inherited the case after a series of adverse decisions, we turned it around and negotiated an economical business solution to the advantage of both parties.  We also represented PixArt in litigation arising out of the settlement of a prior patent case concerning optical tracking technologies (in which we also represented the company).  We resolved that case by negotiating a complex set of patent cross-licenses and crafting an ongoing business relationship between the two former adversaries.

The firm was lead counsel for Ticketmaster (now Live Nation) in a patent fight against competitor Flash Seats in which we secured a summary judgment victory of both noninfringement and invalidity on five claims, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.  We have represented Quantum Corporation in a number of disputes, including a case against Compression Technology Solutions, LLC, in which the district court granted summary judgment on two grounds, finding the patent at issue invalid for failing to claim patentable subject matter and for indefiniteness.  The Federal Circuit affirmed.  We won summary judgment of invalidity related to speech recognition technology on behalf of West Interactive and personalization of Internet content on behalf of Yelp.  On behalf of Palo Alto Networks, we secured summary judgment of non-infringement for two patents and summary judgment of no literal infringement for two other patents, which resulted in an early resolution of the case.  In another case for Palo Alto Networks, we won a summary judgment dismissal of trade secrets claims concerning signature scanning algorithms, leading to a walk-away settlement of the remaining patent claims.

Representative matters:

  • OpenTV, Inc. v. Netflix, Inc., 3:14-cv-01723 (N.D. Cal.)
  • Fitbit, Inc. v. Fitbug, Inc., 1:14-cv-01267 (N.D. Ill.)
  • Versata Software Inc. v. Infoblox, Inc., 13-678-LPS (D. Del.)
  • Listingbook LLC v. Market Leader, Inc., 1:13-CV-00583 (M.D.N.C.)
  • e.Digital Corp. v. Eye-Fi, Inc., 3:13-cv-02899 (S.D. Cal.)
  • Airwatch LLC v. Mobile Iron, Inc., 1:12-cv-03571 (N.D. Ga.)
  • Wang v. Palo Alto Networks, 12-cv-05579 (N.D. Cal.)
  • Genetic Technologies Ltd. v. Lab Corp. of America et al., 1:12-cv-01736 (D. Del)
  • Compression Technologies Solutions, LLC v. EMC Corp. et al., 5:12-cv-1746 (N.D. Cal.)
  • DriveCam v. SmartDrive Systems, Inc., 11CV0997 H RBB (S.D. Cal.)
  • Eastman Kodak Company v. Shutterfly, Inc., 1:10-cv-01079-SLR (D. Del.)
  • EIT Holdings LLC v. Yelp!, Inc. et al., CV 10 5623 (JCS) (N.D. Cal.)
  • F5 Networks Inc. v. Imperva Inc., 10-cv-00760 (W.D. Wash.)
  • Flash Seats LLC v. Paciolan Inc., 07-cv-00575 (D. Del.)
  • Fortinet, Inc v. Palo Alto Networks, Inc., 09-cv-00036 (N.D. Cal.)
  • Glaxo Group Ltd. v. Genentech, Inc., 09-cv-61608 (C.D. Cal.)
  • Joao Control & Monitoring Systems of California, LLC v. DriveCam, 8:10-cv-01909-DOC-RNB (C.D. Cal.)
  • Media Queue, LLC v. Netflix, Inc., 2010-1199 (Fed. Cir.)
  • Phoenix Solutions, Inc. v. PG&E, 09-cv-00774 (C.D. Cal.)
  • Phoenix Solutions, Inc. v. West Interactive Corp., 09-cv-08156 (C.D. Cal.)
  • PixArt Imaging, Inc v. Avago Technologies General IP (Singapore) Pte. Ltd., Inc., 10-cv-00544 (N.D. Cal.)
  • Plant Equipment Inc. v. Intrado Inc., 2:09-cv-395 (E.D. Tex.)
  • Ruckus Wireless, Inc. v. Netgear Inc., 09-cv-05271 (N.D. Cal.)
  • Sony Corp. v. Viewsonic Corp., 09-cv-07698 (C.D. Cal.)
  • Sunpower Corp., Systems v. Sunlink Corp., 08-02807 (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda County)
  • TQP Development, LLC v. Ticketmaster Entertainment, Inc., 09-cv-00279 (E.D. Tex.)
  • Accenture Global Services, GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., 07-826 (D. Del.)


Durie Tangri has extensive experience in groundbreaking copyright cases.  The firm has represented clients such as Google, Aereo, Netflix, CoreLogic, Automattic, the University of Chicago, Microsoft, Public.Resource.Org and Reddit in copyright matters.  We have litigated copyright cases at every level, including the United States Supreme Court, and we have participated in many of the precedent-setting cases in the past decade—two reasons Managing IP Magazine named us the Specialty IP Firm of the Year in 2015 and the National Copyright Firm of the Year in 2013 and The Legal 500 named us National Copyright Team of the Year and Law360 named us IP Group of the Year, in 2014.  Perhaps it’s also why we have won or placed second at the Electronic Frontier Foundation Pub Quiz for the last five years in a row.

We achieved a major victory defending the Google Books program, an unprecedented project to build a comprehensive, and searchable database of more than 20 million books that helps users discover books.  In November 2013, the district court granted Google’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Google Books qualified as fair use and did not require permission from copyright holders.

We represented the Spanish website RojaDirecta in the Southern District of New York in litigation challenging the United States government’s seizure of its domain names on the basis of alleged copyright infringement, the first successful challenge to the government’s domain name seizure program.  We successfully represented  Troy Augusto in a precedent-setting Ninth Circuit appeal defending our trial court win establishing the fair use right to resell lawfully obtained promotional CDs.  We also secured a decisive victory at the pleadings stage on behalf of Eventbrite in a case alleging copying of a competitor’s website content. 

We recently won a motion to dismiss on a copyright claim on behalf of Google and Waze Inc. in a case brought by PhantomALERT accusing Waze of copying data in its user-generated app, including false data known as Easter Eggs in the process, while warning drivers of traffic and hazards on the road.  The firm represented DISH Network in defending its Hopper DVR against copyright challenges brought by each of the major television networks.  Along with co-counsel, we succeeded in persuading the district court to deny a preliminary injunction, and defended that win on appeal.  We represented Linden Lab in cases alleging in-world copying of virtual objects in Second Life and challenging Second Life’s virtual land ownership rules, and resellers challenging Adobe’s restrictive software licensing practices in the Ninth Circuit.  We filed an amicus brief in Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons on behalf of independent booksellers that was quoted and relied upon by the Supreme Court in reaffirming copyright’s first sale doctrine.  We regularly represent clients large and small, from Google and Facebook to individual academics, in filing amicus briefs in numerous appellate copyright cases, including Perfect 10 v. GoogleMurphy v. Millennium Radio GroupFlava Works v. Gunter, and Cariou v. Prince.  The firm’s lawyers have played key roles in many of the defining copyright cases of the past 10 years, including Grokster, Napster, LimeWire, Perfect 10, UMG v. Augusto, and Google Book Search.

We are frequent commentators on cutting edge copyright and Internet issues. Mark is one of the preeminent academic voices on technology issues, and Joe is Chair of the ABA IP Section’s Committee on Performance Rights and Sound Recordings.

Here are some representative engagements:

  • American Society of Media Photographers, Inc. v. Google Inc., 10-cv-2977 (S.D.N.Y.)
  • Artifex Software, Inc. v. Palm, Inc., 09-cv-05679 (N.D. Cal.)
  • The Authors Guild v. Google Inc., 05-cv-08136 (S.D.N.Y.)
  • Benjamin v. Google Inc., 09-cv-04735 (N.D. Cal.)
  • BlueGem Software, Inc. v. Trusteer, Inc., 11-cv-2682 (C.D. Cal.)
  • Cvent, Inc. v. Eventbrite, Inc., 10-cv-00481 (E.D. Va.)
  • DISH Network v. ABC Studios, 12-cv-4155 (S.D.N.Y.)
  • Eros, LLC v. Linden Research, Inc.,09-cv-04269 (N.D. Cal.)
  • Evans v. Linden Research, Inc., 11-cv-01078-DMR (E.D. Pa. and N.D. Cal.)
  • Fox v. DISH Network, 2:12-cv-04529 (C.D. Cal.)
  • Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, 11-697 (U.S. Sup. Ct.)
  • Neeley v. NameMedia, Inc., 09-cv-05151 (W.D. Ark. and 8th Cir.)
  • Obodai v. Google Inc., 11-cv-4343 (S.D.N.Y.)
  • Puerto 80 Projects, S.L.U. v. United States, 11-cv-3983 (S.D.N.Y.)
  • Shloss v. Sweeney, 06-cv-03718 (N.D. Cal.)
  • Tetris Holding, LLC v. Xio Interactive Inc., 09-cv-06115 (D.N.J.)
  • UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto, 08-55998 (9th Cir.)
  • United States v., 11-cv-4139 (S.D.N.Y.)


The firm’s lawyers have represented Google in five cases defending the legality of its use of Internet keywords to trigger advertising against attack by trademark owners.  Mike and Joe represented Google in a putative class action challenging the AdSense for Domains product brought by Vulcan Golf challenging the practice of domain name “parking”; the district court denied class certification which led to a favorable settlement.  The firm also represented Linden Lab in a putative class action on behalf of creators of virtual products marketed inside Second Life.  Mark represented Google in filing an amicus brief successfully urging the Second Circuit to establish new law favorable to our client regarding pop-up advertising.  Mark and Mike also represented a consortium of yoga studios defending their rights to use particular poses against a claim of copyright and trademark infringement by Bikram Choudhury.  Johanna was part of the team that defended in a suit brought by Microsoft alleging trademark infringement of the “Windows” mark.

Here are some representative engagements:

  • Americash Loans, LLC v. Americash Hotline, LLC, 08-cv-05147 (E.D. Ill.)
  • CNG Financial Corp. v. Osborn, 09-cv-00857 (S.D. Ohio)
  • Eros, LLC v. Linden Research, Inc., 09-cv-04269 (N.D. Cal.)
  • Kingston Technology Corp. v. Jiaxin Technology, 09-cv-01038 (C.D. Cal.)

Professional Liability

Durie Tangri attorneys have represented many leading law firms, both Bay Area based and nationwide, in defense of professional liability claims.  Our breadth of substantive disciplines and commitment to a “generalist” approach to litigation make us well-suited to step into virtually any professional liability claim, regardless of the underlying field of law.  We have defended claims related to patent prosecution and patent litigation, general corporate advice rendered to both start-up and established companies, advice regarding employee benefit plans, and to a wide variety of civil litigation issues.

In addition to defending ripe claims, we frequently are called upon to advise our clients on avoiding or mitigating potential conflict-of-interest issues.  Dave, a professor at the University of San Diego School of Law for over ten years, a member of the American Law Institute, and the former co-chair of the San Diego County Bar Association Legal Ethics Committee, focuses on legal ethics and professional liability issues and recently published a legal ethics casebook with Thompson West.

White Collar Crime and Investigations

Durie Tangri’s White Collar Crime and Investigations practice group is led by lawyers who have successfully defended businesses and individuals in criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings in federal and state courts throughout the United States.  They are experienced trial lawyers who have successfully defended their clients at trial; they also pride themselves on their ability to terminate investigations without press or harm to the individuals facing scrutiny.  Durie Tangri’s lawyers have defended clients facing investigation and prosecution by the Department of Justice, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, as well as many other state and federal agencies.  They have represented numerous executives of Fortune 500 companies or public figures faced with investigation by federal and state authorities.  They have also represented major corporations in connection with the internal investigation of potential violations of criminal laws or regulations.  Durie Tangri’s lawyers have also represented audit and special committees to conduct internal investigations of possible financial fraud, corporate wrongdoing, intellectual property misappropriation, and similar allegations. 

The lawyers in Durie Tangri’s white collar group have been named by many top publications for their success in defending those faced with government scrutiny.  Those publications include the Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal, Super Lawyers, Benchmark Litigation, Chambers USA, Martindale-Hubbell, and many others.  Michael Proctor, who is a coauthor of one of the leading books on Federal Criminal Practice, is a veteran of the Federal Public Defender’s Office in the Central District of California and has received numerous accolades as one of the premier criminal defense attorneys in California.  Benjamin Au has been recognized for his white collar work as a Super Lawyer, a Future Star and top lawyer nationwide under 40 by Benchmark Litigation, and as a Top 20 Lawyer in California under 40 by the Los Angeles and San Francisco Daily Journal.  He serves on the board of directors for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and its White Collar Committee.  Galia Amram came to Durie Tangri after over four years at the Federal Public Defender’s Office for the Northern District of California as well as the District of Wyoming.  As a federal defender, her victories included numerous case-dispositive motions–including one that resulted in the dismissal of twelve pending federal criminal cases on the same day.   Galia has tried approximately twenty federal and state jury trials.  Most recently, in January 2019, she first-chaired a federal First Degree murder trial.  This case involved a pioneering Daubert challenge to the FBI crime labs’ use of probabilistic genotyping software for analyzing complex DNA mixtures.  Prior to the murder case, she tried to juries five federal firearm cases in a row, only one of which resulted in a conviction.  Before working at the Federal Public Defender, Galia taught the criminal defense clinic at Stanford Law School. 

Here are some representative engagements:

  • Current representation of the highest level electrical grid executive at PG&E in connection with the Camp Fire in Paradise, California, as well as numerous other fires in 2017. 
  • Current representation of high level Wells Fargo bank executive in connection with numerous governmental investigations relating to the Wells Fargo account practices. 
  • Current representation of a parent in the “Varsity Blues” / college admissions bribery cases. 
  • Successful representation of a key executive of an international gaming company in multiple federal investigations regarding allegations of FCPA and anti-money laundering violations, resulting in no charges against the client. 
  • Representation of multiple CEO’s or other key executives of prominent technology companies in investigations by the Department of Justice, particularly in the area of securities fraud, as well by the SEC.  In many cases, Durie Tangri’s attorneys have successfully persuaded government authorities not to pursue any action against their clients. 
  • Representation of executives and engineers in economic espionage, criminal trade secret misappropriation, and export control cases, including cases implicating national security laws.  Durie Tangri’s attorneys have significant experience dealing with China-U.S. cross-border enforcement issues. 
  • Conducting internal investigations on behalf of major national companies or their directors.  The subjects of their investigations have included accounting fraud, embezzlement of funds, and the misappropriation of intellectual property. 

Contract & Commercial

Durie Tangri lawyers have handled a broad array of complex civil litigation, including disputes relating to contracts, trade secrets, employee mobility, corporate control, and false advertising.

The firm recently tried and won a case on behalf of the California State University system in a class action litigation seeking over $75 million based on fee increases across the entire statewide system.  We also tried and won a case on behalf of venture capital firm Thomvest Holdings, persuading the court to reform a contract entitling Thomvest to a warrant worth over $11 million.  We defended and won a case on behalf of the founder of an online social advertising network in a lawsuit brought by an individual who claimed to be a co-founder.  We filed a lawsuit on behalf of THX, the Lucas Film spin-off, against Monster Cable Products in a dispute over a license agreement. Following a victory on a motion seeking a right to attach Monster’s assets the case settled favorably.  The firm’s lawyers have represented shareholders in earnout disputes, and venture capital firms and individual board members in disputes over ownership and control of companies, and we regularly litigate cases involving allegations of misappropriation of trade secrets.



Mark wrote the book – literally – on IP and antitrust law.  We have represented both plaintiffs and defendants in a wide variety of industries, and in criminal as well as civil antitrust complaints.  We also counsel clients on antitrust matters including compliance, amnesty issues, and participation in standard-setting and trade organizations.

Here are some representative engagements:

  • Evans v. Linden Research, Inc., 10-cv-01679 (E.D. Pa.)
  • Halpern v. Shukla, RG 09-466814 (Cal. Super. Ct. Alameda County)
  • IBM Corp. v. T3 Technologies, Inc., 06-cv-13565 (S.D.N.Y.), 09-4517 (2d Cir.)
  • PC Specialists, Inc. d/b/a Technology Integration Group v. FusionStorm, CGC 07-464358 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Francisco County)
  • Phoenix American SalesFocus Solutions, Inc. v. ThomasLloyd Global, CV 085116 (Cal. Super. Ct. Marin County)
  • Robert J. Thomas v. William James del Biaggio, III et al., 11-05180-YGR (N.D. Cal.), 11-03191 (Bankr. N.D. Cal.)
  • Thomas Weisel Partners LLC v. BNP Paribas, 07-cv-06198 (N.D. Cal.)
  • THX Ltd. v. Monster Cable Products, Inc., CIV 1004485 (Cal. Super. Ct. Marin County)
  • VoIP, Inc. v. Google Inc., BC 418842 (Cal. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County)
  • Wyde Voice, Free Conferencing v. GIPS, Google, Inc., CGC-12-522868 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Francisco County)
  • L-7 Designs, Inc. v. Old Navy, LLC, 1:09-cv-01432-DC (S.D.N.Y.)
  • Keller v. The Board of Trustees of California State University, CGC-09-490977 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Francisco County)
  • PeopleBrowsr, Inc. et al. v. Twitter, Inc., CGC-12-526393 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Francisco County)
  • Doe v. Twitter, Inc., CGC-10-503630 (Cal. Super. Ct. San Francisco County)
  • Marcil v. ThomasLloyd Capital LLC, FINRA No. 10-02421
  • Oncology Tech, LLC v. Elekta AB, et al., 5:12-cv-00314 (W.D. Tex.)
  • Shareholder Representative Services v. MEMC Electronic Materials, Inc., 1100074132 (JAMS)
  • Health Line v. Semprus Biosciences, 1:12-cv-00165 (N.D. Utah)
  • Frank Reginald Brown, IV v. Snapchat, Inc., et al., BC5014 (Cal. Super. Ct. Los Angeles County)
  • Natara Multimedia Group v. Carranza, et al., 1:14-cv-02791 (N.D. Ill.)
  • Zscaler, Inc. v. Anuj Grover, 113cv246711 (Cal. Super. Ct. Santa Clara County)
  • Filaser v. Kinestral Technologies, Inc., 3:14-cv-00357 (D. Or.)
  • Bharadhwaj v. Aryaka Networks, Inc., 1100066245 (JAMS)

Class Action

Durie Tangri attorneys have extensive experience in defending class action cases, including some of the largest putative classes in the world.  We represent Google in a nationwide class action challenging Google’s unification of its various privacy policies, and in an international class action defending against claims of copyright infringement arising from Google’s program of scanning works in major library collections.  In the latter, we prevailed on summary judgment, with the court finding that Google’s conduct constitutes a fair use of the underlying works, a ruling affirmed by the Second Circuit Court of Appeal.  Last year, we won a defense verdict on behalf of the California State University following a three-week trial, in a class action challenging CSU’s response to the California budget crisis.  We represented multiple application developers in a nationwide class action challenging allegedly improper access to Apple iOS device address books, and have successfully represented Linden Research in defense of two separate class actions challenging the operation of Second Life.  We have successfully defended and settled other class actions, usually at levels below transaction costs, on behalf of clients such as Quantcast, Twitter, Google, and others.

Here are some representative engagements:

  • The Authors Guild v. Google Inc., 05-cv-08136 (S.D.N.Y.)
  • In re Google Inc. Privacy Policy Litigation, 12-cv-01382 (N.D. Cal.)
  • In re Apple iDevice Address Book Litigation, 13-cv-00453 (N.D. Cal.)
  • Doe v. Twitter, Inc., CGC 10-503630 (Cal. Super. Ct.)
  • Eros, LLC v. Linden Research, Inc., 09-cv-04269 (N.D. Cal.)
  • Evans v. Linden Research, Inc., 10-cv-01679 (E.D. Pa., N.D. Cal.)
  • Keller v. Board of Trustees of California State University, CGC 09-440977 (Cal. Super. Ct.)
  • CLRB Hanson Industries, LLC v. Google Inc., 09-17380 (9th Cir.)
  • Valdez v. Quantcast Corp., 10-cv-05484 (C.D. Cal.)
  • Greene v. Google Inc., 13-cv-03613 (N.D. Cal)


Durie Tangri lawyers regularly appear in state and federal appellate courts.  We’ve argued 25 cases in the Federal Circuit and more than 40 cases in the courts of appeals overall.  Here are a few of our wins:

The firm represented employee health and welfare plans that purchased Cipro in challenging overcharges based on a pharmaceutical patent settlement.  We persuaded the California Supreme Court to unanimously reverse the trial court and court of appeal in a precedent-setting interpretation of the Cartwright Act.  The firm represented Google in defending a class action copyright case filed by book authors over Google Book Search, winning in the Second Circuit on class certification and (with co-counsel) prevailing again on the merits.  We represented Silver Spring Networks in successfully overturning a $13 million jury verdict for patent infringement on claim construction grounds.  We represented a group of airlines and online ticket sellers in an appeal to the Federal Circuit, which affirmed a jury verdict in favor of our clients, invalidating a patent for online seat selection, and in a second opinion later affirmed a judgment refusing to reopen the case. We represented insurance software provider Guidewire at the Federal Circuit.  The Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that plaintiff’s software patent claimed unpatenable subject matter and were invalid in a precedent-setting interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 101.  The firm successfully represented Troy Augusto in a copyright case at the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed summary judgment for our client that the first sale doctrine allowed the resale of promotional music CDs.  We have represented Newegg in a number of Federal Circuit appeals seeking attorneys fees as a prevailing defendant, winning reversals in cases against both Pragmatus and Adjustacam.  After obtaining summary judgment in patent cases for clients such as Guidewire, Yelp, and West Interactive Corporation, we continued to advocate for them at the Federal Circuit, which affirmed our district court victories in several different decisions.  And we won dismissal of a case with prejudice for discovery misconduct in the California Court of Appeal.

Here are some representative engagements:

  • Accenture Global Services, GmbH v. Guidewire Software, Inc., No. 11-1486 (Fed. Cir.)
  • In re Cipro Cases I and II, No. S198616 (Cal. Sup. Ct.)
  • Author’s Guild v. Google Inc., No. 12-3200 (2d Cir.)
  • EON Corp. IP Holdings LLC v. Silver Spring Networks, Inc., No. 15-1237 (Fed. Cir.)
  • Pragmatus Telecom LLC v. Newegg Inc., No. 14-1777 (Fed. Cir.)
  • Ceats, Inc. v. Continental Airlines, Inc., No. 12-1614 (Fed. Cir.)
  • Adjustacam, LLC v. Newegg Inc., Nos. 13-1665, 13-1666 & 13-1667 (Fed. Cir.)
  • EIT Holdings LLC v. Yelp!, Inc., No. 12-1192 (Fed. Cir.)
  • Phoenix Solutions, Inc. v. West Interactive Corp., No. 11-1022 (Fed. Cir.)
  • UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Augusto, No. 08-55998 (9th Cir.)
  • FO2GO LLC v. Pinterest, Inc., Smugmug, Inc., Tumblr, Inc., Yahoo! Inc.,  Nos. 16-1903, -1904, -1905 (Fed. Cir.)
  • In re TLI Communications LLC Patent Litigation, No. 15-1372 (Fed. Cir.)

Companies, non-profits, professional associations, and individuals who stand to be affected by shifts in the law frequently turn to us to draft amicus briefs explaining the broader effects of key rulings.  We have submitted amicus briefs to the Second, Third, Seventh, and Ninth Circuit Courts of Appeal, as well as the U.S. Supreme Court on many preeminent recent patent and copyright cases.

Representative engagements include:

  • Halo Electronics, Inc. v. Stryker Corp., Nos. 14-1513 & 14-1520 (Sup. Ct.) (amicus brief for several Internet companies including Netflix and Twitter)
  • Kirtsaeng v. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., No. 11-697 (Sup. Ct.) (amicus brief for Powell’s Books, Strand Book Store, Half Price Books, and Harvard Book Store)
  • Cariou v. Prince, No. 11-1197 (2d Cir.) (amicus brief for Google)
  • Flava Works, Inc. v. Gunter, No. 11-3190 (7th Cir.) (amicus brief for Google and Facebook)
  • Viacom Int’l, Inc. v. YouTube, Inc., Nos. 10-3270 & 10-3342 (2d Cir.) (amicus brief for National Venture Capital Association)
  • Perfect 10, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 10-56316 (9th Cir.) (amicus brief for Chilling Effects Clearinghouse)
  • Murphy v. Millennium Radio Group, LLC, No. 10-2163 (3d Cir.) (amicus brief for Brave New Films)