Benjamin J. Fox

Partner

Los Angeles, (213) 892-5207

Download vCard

Education

University of Florida (B.S., 1994)
;
University of California, Los Angeles, School of Law (J.D., 1997)

Practices

Appellate + Supreme Court

Class Actions

Intellectual Property Litigation

Bar Admissions

California

Ben Fox is a partner in the firm’s Appellate and Intellectual Property Groups and is the head of the firm’s Los Angeles Litigation Department. He is involved in a broad-ranging trial and appellate practice focusing on complex intellectual property issues, class action jurisprudence and constitutional issues, among other areas of practice.

Mr. Fox's industry experience includes representing clients in the electronic entertainment, software and animation, sports and gaming industries, as well as in litigation affecting the medical devices and health care industries, financial services, transportation, education, engineering, and commercial real estate investments. He is regularly involved in high-stakes cases for defendants and plaintiffs in copyright, trademark, patent and trade secrets litigation, and other commercial disputes.

In his appellate practice, Mr. Fox is regularly asked to substitute in following trial court proceedings handled by other lawyers or law firms, particularly in matters before the Ninth Circuit, the California Court of Appeal (all districts), and the California Supreme Court. He is also a go-to lawyer for petitions seeking extraordinary relief during pretrial and trial. He served on the State Appellate Courts Judicial Evaluation Committee (2007-2012) and is a member of the LA County Bar’s Appellate Courts Committee.

Mr. Fox’s current matters include representing videogame publishers in software patent cases pending in the District of Delaware, Eastern District of Texas and Central District of California; representing Internet service providers in connection with BitTorrent copyright litigation in multiple venues; and representing clients in appeals pending in the California Supreme Court and federal Courts of Appeals.

He maintains an active pro bono practice. He filed briefs for the National Disability Rights Network as amicus curiae in a challenge to state cuts for adult health services (in the Ninth Circuit), and for the Child Law Center in a pending challenge to regulations affecting children with diabetes (before the California Supreme Court). He was counsel for the plaintiff-schoolchildren in Williams v. California, a statewide constitutional challenge to substandard conditions in public schools.

Mr. Fox is recommended by Legal 500 (2011) in the area of trademark litigation and was ranked a “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers 2005-2007.

He joined Morrison & Foerster in 1997 following graduation from the UCLA School of Law, where he was elected to the Order of the Coif. He became a partner in the firm in 2006.

Significant engagements are listed below.

Videogame Software Patent Cases

Lead counsel for one or more defendants in multi-party software patent cases brought against makers and distributors of electronic entertainment products, including Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Harmonix Music Systems, et al. (D. Del. pending); McRO Inc. v. Namco Bandai, et al. (C.D. Cal. pending); Impulse Technology, Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., et al. (D. Del. pending); Wildcat IP Holdings LLC v. 4Kids Entertainment, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex. 2013); Walker Digital LLC v. 2K Games, et al. (D. Del. 2013); Impulse Technology, Ltd. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ohio 2012); Software Restore Solutions, LLC v. Apple, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. 2010).

California Redistricting Litigation

Vandermost v. Bowen, 53 Cal. 4th 421 (2012). Represented the Citizens Redistricting Commission, the state constitutional body with authority for drawing district lines following each U.S. Census, in the successful defense of all challenges to the Commission’s State Senate and U.S Congressional district maps. Challenges were litigated in the California Supreme Court pursuant to a constitutional grant of original jurisdiction in that court.

Gramercy Investment Trust v. Lakemont

198 Cal. App. 4th 903 (2011). Argued winning appeal that affirmed a $35 million judgment for client Gramercy Investment Trust, resulting in a precedential opinion that confirms the enforceability of broad contractual waivers in contracts between sophisticated business persons.

Konami / Upper Deck litigation

(C.D. Cal. 2010.) Counsel for plaintiff Konami Digital Entertainment in high-profile litigation against its former distributor, The Upper Deck Company, accused of counterfeiting Konami’s product. Won summary judgment of a finding of liability for trademark counterfeiting. Case settled during trial after defendant stipulated that its counterfeiting was done willfully and to issuance of a permanent injunction.

Jneid and TriPole v. Novell, Inc.

(Cal. Court of Appeal, 4th App. Dist. 2009.) Counsel for Novell on appeal from a judgment on a $33 million jury verdict based on issue and evidentiary sanctions. In December 2009, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against Novell on constitutional due process grounds and remanded for a new trial.

Simon v. Hartford Life and Accident Ins. Co.

546 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2008). Represented Hartford on appeal, winning on decision that breach of fiduciary duty claims filed pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a) are representative actions that must be brought, if at all, by licensed counsel.

Oakland Raiders v. Oakland-Alameda Cty. Coliseum Corp.

144 Cal. App. 4th 1175 (2006). Represented Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum on appeal, obtaining reversal of $34 million judgment following a multi-month trial in which the Raiders claimed more than $1 billion in damages.

Williams v. State of California

(S.F. Super. Ct. 2000-04.) Counsel for class of plaintiff-schoolchildren in statewide challenge to substandard conditions at K—12 public schools, including lack of textbooks, severe overcrowding, insufficient numbers of desks, lack of functioning bathrooms, untrained teachers, and facilities that failed to meet basic health-and-safety needs. Case concluded with a landmark settlement providing state-level oversight and $1 billion commitment to improve school conditions.