---

Brian R. Matsui is a partner in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office in the Appellate Practice Group of the Litigation Department. Mr. Matsui has wide-ranging experience in appellate litigation, and his practice primarily includes the representation of clients in appellate litigation in both federal and state courts.

Mr. Matsui has filed numerous briefs before the Supreme Court of the United States, federal circuit courts, state supreme courts, and state appellate courts. Additionally, he has represented clients in federal district and state trial courts, administrative proceedings, and arbitrations by providing his appellate expertise to case strategy and dispositive motions involving complex issues of law.

Among other issues, Mr. Matsui has been a primary author of briefs addressing questions of federal preemption of the National Bank Act and Federal Home Loan Bank Act in the Supreme Court of the United States, federal courts of appeals, and state supreme courts; questions related to patent prosecutions in the Supreme Court of the United States; and questions concerning the Freedom of Information Act for government contract cases in federal district court. He also has substantial experience in cases involving the negative implications of the Commerce Clause, procedural and substantive due process, and the Takings Clause.

Prior to joining the firm, Mr. Matsui clerked for the Hon. Anthony M. Kennedy of the Supreme Court of the United States, the Hon. Pamela Ann Rymer of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the Hon. David F. Levi of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Mr. Matsui is a graduate of Stanford Law School, where he graduated with distinction and was elected Order of the Coif. He served as Managing Editor of Volume 51 of the Stanford Law Review. He received his A.B. in Political Science from Stanford University.

Mr. Matsui is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia and California.

---

Representative Matters

• MeadWestvaco v. Illinois Dep’t of Revenue, 128 S. Ct. 1498 (2008). Brief for MeadWestvaco regarding whether the sale of a nonunitary business served an operational rather than an investment function, and thus was subject to taxation by a non-domiciliary State, under Allied-Signal, Inc. v. Director, Illinois Div. of Taxation (1992).
• Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, 128 S. Ct. 989 (2008). Brief for respondents New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, Massachusetts Motor Transportation Association, Inc., and Vermont Truck & Bus Association, Inc. on the scope of the preemption provision of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994.
• Klein & Co. Futures Inc. v. Board of Trade, 127 S. Ct. 2431 (2007). Petition for a writ of certiorari, and, after Supreme Court granted petition, brief for Klein & Co. Futures Inc. regarding whether the Commodity Exchange Act confers a private right of action to futures commission merchants that suffer losses as a result of a board of trade’s bad faith failure to adhere to its own rules, the Commodity Exchange Act, or federal regulations.
• Yax v. UPS, 127 S. Ct. 2428 (2007). Brief in opposition to a certiorari petition on behalf of UPS regarding proximate cause under the civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
• KSR International Co. v. Teleflex, Inc., 127 S. Ct. 1727 (2007). Brief on behalf of Biotechnology Industry Organization addressing whether the Federal Circuit’s test for non-obviousness is consistent with the Patent Act.
• Silvas v. E*TRADE Mortgage, No. 06-55556 (9th Cir. pending). Brief on behalf of the American Bankers Association and the California Bankers Association regarding federal preemption by the Home Owner’s Loan Act and the Office of Thrift Supervision of state lending regulations for federal savings associations.
• Enron Corp. v. New Power Co. (In re New Power Co.), 438 F.3d 1113 (11th Cir. 2006). Oral argument on behalf of appellee New Power Co. concerning the requirements for a valid plan confirmation in bankruptcy proceedings.
• Navy v. Northrop Grumman Corp., No. 2006-1001 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Brief on behalf of appellee regarding whether the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals appropriately applied the burden of proof and whether the Board’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.