Mr. McElhinny is Co-Chair of the Firm’s Intellectual Property Group. He is a trial lawyer. He represents clients, as both plaintiff and defendant, in significant matters involving all aspects of patent, copyright and trade secret litigation, class actions, and enforcement. Mr. McElhinny is listed in The Best Lawyers in America (2006, 2007) as a leader in the field of intellectual property law. He was highly recommended by the 2006 PLC Which Lawyer? Yearbook in intellectual property law. Chambers rates him as recommended in Intellectual Property, and in 2007, Portfolio.com named him one of the ten best patent trial lawyers in the United States.

Mr. McElhinny is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers. He is a member of the American Bar Association, a member of the Intellectual Property Law section of the State Bar of California and a member of the American Intellectual Property Law Association. He was the 1996-97 President of the Northern California Association of Business Trial Lawyers. He has taught classes on trade secret law as a guest lecturer at Stanford Law School, and has taught trial advocacy in special programs at Stanford and the University of San Francisco.

Mr. McElhinny received his B.A. degree in 1970 from the University of Santa Clara and, after serving in the Peace Corps in North Africa, received his J.D. degree from Boalt Hall School of Law, the University of California at Berkeley, in 1975. He was a contributor to the Law Review and a member of the Order of the Coif. Upon graduation from law school, he clerked for the Honorable M. Joseph Blumenfeld in the United States District Court in Hartford, Connecticut. He associated with Morrison & Foerster in 1976, becoming a partner of the firm in 1981. From 1996 to 1999, he served as firmwide Chair of the Litigation Department.

Mr. McElhinny’s experience includes the following significant matters:

• Advanced Micro Fabrication Equipment (China)
  This Shanghai-based manufacturer of advanced semi-conductor fabrication equipment has been accused of misappropriating trade secrets by Applied Materials in litigation pending in the U.S. District Court in San Jose, California. Mr. McElhinny leads the defense team.
• Funai Electric Corp.
  Osaka based Funai is one of the world’s leading manufacturers of consumer electronics. Funai has brought actions in the International Trade Commission and in the U.S. District Court in Los Angeles to enforce patents relating to the design of high-definition television. Mr. McElhinny is Funai’s lead attorney in both proceedings.
• Pioneer Corporation
  Pioneer Corporation is the plaintiff in two actions pending against Samsung in the Eastern District of Texas. In the first case, set for trial in March 2008, Pioneer is suing Samsung for infringing Pioneer patents covering the design of plasma televisions. In the second case, set for trial in October 2008, Pioneer is seeking a declaration that it does not infringe any of Samsungs’ plasma related patents.
• EchoStar Communications Corp.
  EchoStar is a supplier of Digital Broadcast Services and the operator of the DISH satellite TV network. Mr. McElhinny is litigation counsel for EchoStar. Morrison has represented EchoStar in the following actions:
• EchoStar v. Viacom et al. (N.D. CA.)
  EchoStar sued Viacom, CBS, and their affiliates, alleging that Viacom threatened to violate Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act by unlawfully tying consent to CBS retransmission rights to a requirement that EchoStar purchase additional cable programming. EchoStar successfully obtained a Temporary Restraining Order prohibiting Viacom from terminating EchoStar’s right to retransmit CBS programming, including the Super Bowl.
• TiVo v. EchoStar (E.D. Tex.) TiVo sued EchoStar alleging that EchoStar infringes a TiVo patent related to technology that permits television viewers to determine the time at which they choose to watch programs.
• GemStar v. EchoStar et al. (USITC). In June 2002, the ITC Administrative Law Judge ruled that EchoStar and other defendants had not infringed any of the GemStar patents at issue. This decision was subsequently adopted by the full Commission and affirmed in part by the Federal Circuit.
• EchoStar Satellite Corp. v. Ace Bermuda Insurance Co., EchoStar’s insurers refused to pay a $200 million claim for damage to the EchoStar IV Communications Satellite. An AAA Arbitration Panel ultimately provided EchoStar a full recovery.
• Nikon v. ASML
  After Nikon lost an action it had brought in the International Trade Commission, Nikon retained Morrison & Foerster as trial counsel in a companion action in the U.S. District Court in San Francisco against ASML and Carl Zeiss SMT, A.G. Morrison also supervised related litigation in Japan, Korea, and Taiwan. Mr. McElhinny led the Nikon team together with Jack Londen. The dispute settled in November 2004 after the defendants paid Nikon $145 million. Decisions from this action are published at 308 F.Supp. 3d 1039 (2004) and 222 F.R.D. 2d 647 (2004).
• Yahoo! and Insight Enterprises
  Working with Andrew Monach, Mr. McElhinny filed declaratory judgments in the Northern District of California for Yahoo! and in the District of Arizona for Insight against the Terradata Division of NCR. The actions challenged the validity and scope of a portfolio which Terradata claims covers anyone who sells products over the Internet. Each of the actions settled quickly.
• DoubleClick, Inc.
  This Internet advertising company retained Morrison to enforce its pioneering “adserver” technology, which permits targeted advertising over the Internet. Mr. McElhinny supervised infringement actions for DoubleClick in the Southern District of New York.
• Aclara BioSciences v. Caliper Technologies
  Aclara sued Caliper alleging infringement of Aclara’s seminal patent for microfluidic devices using electrokinetic forces. Morrison represented Aclara as the plaintiff in an action in the Northern District of California, as a defendant in an action alleging misappropriation of trade secrets in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, and as a defendant in a separate infringement action filed in California. A decision from this action is reported at 125 F. Supp. 2d 391 (N.D. Cal. 2000).
• Healtheon v. Fotsch
  Healtheon, a leader in the field of web-based medical applications, sued two former employees to enforce non-competition agreements and to remedy breaches of fiduciary duty. After selling their business to Healtheon in exchange for stock, the employees immediately began to organize another competing enterprise.
• Religious Technology Center v. Dennis Erlich
  Morrison & Foerster represented Dennis Erlich, a former member of the Church of Scientology, who was sued by the Church in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California for alleged copyright and trade secret violations in connection with statements critical of Scientology posted on the Internet.
• Thomson Consumer Electronics
  On the complaint of Innovatron, SA, an action was initiated by the International Trade Commission. After the Administrative Law Judge had issued an Initial Determination adverse to Thomson, Mr. McElhinny was asked to supervise the appeal and the parallel district court proceeding in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. On appeal, the ITC reversed the ALJ and ordered the investigation terminated. That decision was subsequently affirmed by the Federal Circuit. 194 F.3d. 1332 (1999).
• SRI International, Inc. v. Advanced Technology Laboratories, Inc.
  In this patent infringement action, Mr. McElhinny represented SRI. The United States District Court entered summary judgment in favor of SRI on all liability issues, and its ruling was subsequently affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. After trial, the District Court awarded SRI almost $33 million in trebled damages, pre-judgment interest and attorneys’ fees. The award was affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. The decision is reported at 127 F.3d 1462 (1997).
• Electro Scientific Industries, Inc. v. General Scanning, Inc.
  ESI, a Portland-based manufacturer of laser systems for the semiconductor industry, sued GSI for patent infringement in the Northern District of California. In March 1999, a jury awarded ESI $13.1 million in damages. A reported decision arising from this case can be found at 175 F.R.D. 539 (N.D. Cal. 1997). The decision was affirmed by the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. The decision is reported at 247 F.3d 1341 (2001). ESI sued GSI again in 2000. An adverse summary judgment ruling was vacated and remanded by the Federal Circuit. 307 F.3d. 1343 (2002). The action immediately settled.
• Weisman v. Omron Corp.
  Omron Corporation, a manufacturer of blood pressure measurement devices, was sued for patent infringement in the Northern District of Illinois. Mr. McElhinny defended the action together with attorneys from Morrison’s New York office. After a one-week bench trial, the Court upheld Omron’s laches defense. The case was subsequently dismissed.
• Chiron Corporation v. Genentech
  Mr. McElhinny led the Chiron trial team in a protracted dispute with Genentech over a method for inducing baker’s yeast to secrete human insulin-like growth factor. After a two-week court trial, and two appellate decisions, the Federal Circuit confirmed that Chiron inventors were entitled to priority. 220 F.3d 1345 (2000).
• Chiron Corporation v. Abbott Laboratories
  Chiron and Abbott litigated a series of patent disputes concerning immunoassays and DNA probes in the federal district courts for the Northern District of California and the Northern District of Illinois. Mr. McElhinny was lead trial counsel for Chiron in each of the cases. Reported decisions arising from that litigation can be found at 156 F.R.D. 219 (N.D. Cal. 1994) and 902 F. Supp. 1103 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
• Carnegie Mellon University v. Chiron Corporation
  Carnegie Mellon University sued Chiron and others in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleging that Chiron infringed its patent for harvesting purified DNA polymerase I. On Chiron’s motion, the matter was transferred to the Northern District of California, where the Court ruled in Chiron’s favor on infringement and invalidity issues. A decision from this action is reported at 148 F. Supp. 2d 1004 (N.D. Cal. 2001).
• Regents of the University of California v. Eli Lilly and Company
  The University of California sued Eli Lilly for infringing UC’s pioneering human insulin patents. The United States District Court for the Southern District for Indiana entered judgment of non-infringement, invalidity, and non-enforceability against UC. Mr. McElhinny was retained to supervise the appeal of that judgment. The decision of the Court of Appeals is reported at 119 F.3d 1559 (1997).
• Trimedyne v. Surgical Laser Technologies, Inc.
  Mr. McElhinny has represented SLT in its West Coast litigation. In this action in the U.S. District Court in Santa Ana, California, SLT was accused of infringing certain patents involving surgical laser technology. In August 1996, the court entered judgment in favor of SLT. The judgment was subsequently affirmed in all significant respects by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. 155 F.3d 574 (1998).
• International Academy of Science v. Novell Corporation
  Mr. McElhinny led the trial team serving as counsel for Novell in defending allegations of patent infringement. As interpreted by the plaintiff, the patent at issue was sufficiently broad to encompass all methods of distributed data processing and networking. In 2004, after a multi-year reexamination proceeding, the Federal Circuit affirmed a decision that the patent at issue was invalid. 367 F.3d 1359 (2004).
• IBM v. Fujitsu
  Mr. McElhinny served as one of the Morrison trial attorneys working on this software copyright arbitration. In connection with this arbitration, Mr. McElhinny lived in Japan for over a year.
• Target Corporation
  Mr. McElhinny has represented Target Corporation in significant litigation matters. He was lead counsel in Disability Rights Advocates v. Mervyn’s, an action in which the Alameda Superior Court determined that the layout of moveable racks in Mervyn’s stores was not an unfair business practice despite allegations that Mervyn’s denied access to guests with disabilities. Previously, Mr. McElhinny represented Target in Doe v. The Gap et al., an action brought in the United States District Court for the Northern Mariana Islands, on behalf of a class of foreign labors who worked in the garment industry in Saipan, in the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands and in Pollard v. Mervyn’s, an action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, brought on behalf of a class, alleging numerous violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
• Target.com — Target.com has been sued by the National Federation of the Blind and individual defendants. Plaintiffs allege, in a case of first impression, that the Target.com website is inaccessible to blind people. Plaintiffs seek class-wide injunctive relief under the ADA, as well as damages under parallel California statutes.
• Air Transport Association of America et al. v. City of Los Angeles et al.
  Mr. McElhinny served as lead counsel in an action brought by more than forty airlines challenging the reasonableness of rates and charges at Los Angeles International Airport. In that action, Los Angeles successfully defeated the Airlines’ application for a preliminary injunction seeking to excuse them from paying the Airport’s lawful rates. Subsequently the action was dismissed on the City’s motion. The district court opinion is reported at 844 F. Supp. 550 (C.D. Cal. 1994).
• Ohio Public Employees Retirement System (OPERS)
  Mr. McElhinny represented OPERS in actions in the District Court and in the Superior Court for the District of Columbia arising out of a real estate transaction in which OPERS was an investor. In March 1997, after a ten-day trial, the Superior Court awarded $8.5 million plus attorneys’ fees and pre-judgment interest to OPERS. The award was subsequently affirmed by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. 727 A.2d 878 (1999).
• David C. v. Leavitt
  Mr. McElhinny and other Morrison attorneys are assisting the National Youth Law Center in enforcing the terms of a settlement agreement designed to correct years of abuse suffered by foster children in Utah. The action is pending in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. A decision of the District Court is reported at 13 F. Supp. 2d 1206 (D. Utah 1998).

Mr. McElhinny is co-author of Civil Discovery Practice in California, published by California Continuing Education of the Bar, and has edited a supplement to a CEB publication on Civil Procedure Prior to Trial. His article, “Evidentiary Objections as Tools of Persuasion,” was published in the Fall 1992 issue of California Litigation and republished in Fall 1996. In 1989-1990, Mr. McElhinny served as Presiding Referee of the Review Department of the State Bar Court, the disciplinary arm of the State Bar of California. From 1996 to 2001, he was a member of the Board of Trustees of the San Francisco Day School.