---

Brooks Beard has a trial and appellate litigation practice focusing on complex commercial matters. He represents clients in state and federal court, as well as before state and federal administrative agencies, in connection with matters involving false or deceptive advertising, patent infringement, trade secrets, CERCLA/Superfund, California’s Proposition 65, and constitutional conflict preemption. His clients have come from a wide gamut of industries, including mining, consumer products, Internet, technology, pharmaceuticals, financial, consumer retail, food products, and restaurants.

In addition, Mr. Beard sits on the Steering Committee for Morrison & Foerster’s Cleantech Practice Group. In this rapidly evolving area, he is currently providing counseling and litigation advice on issues surrounding false or deceptive advertising allegations relating to environmental or “green” claims made by companies in connection with consumer products and services. He is also involved with patent infringement matters relating to Cleantech companies and subject matter. In addition to the Cleantech Practice Group, Mr. Beard is part of Morrison & Foerster’s Trial Practice Group, IP Litigation Practice Group, and e-Discovery Task Force. Mr. Beard has also been active in Morrison & Foerster’s pro bono program, having successfully represented inmates in prisoner civil rights actions; a single, non-resident mother in a retaliatory lawsuit brought by a former employer; and a middle school student in a school expulsion proceeding.

Mr. Beard is also active in the San Francisco community. In October 2007, San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom appointed Mr. Beard to serve as a commissioner on the San Francisco Rent Stabilization and Arbitration Board. He was sworn in as a commissioner in January 2008.

Mr. Beard was born in Long Beach, California, in 1968. He received his B.A. from the University of California at Santa Barbara in 1991, his J.D., cum laude, from Vermont Law School in 1995, and his LL.M., with distinction, from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1996. While in Vermont, he served as a judicial intern to Justice John A. Dooley of the Vermont Supreme Court. He is a member of the California and District of Columbia bars, and is admitted to practice before the Northern, Eastern, and Central Districts of California; the Eighth, Ninth, and Eleventh Circuit U.S. Courts of Appeals; and the Supreme Court of the United States.

Recently Published Articles

• Growth of ‘Greenwashing’ Will Spur Regulation, Product Liability Law360, September 2008 (co-authored with Robert Falk)
• The New “Green” Marketing Strategy – How Does This Affect Portfolio Companies?, NVCA (National Venture Capital Association) Today, September 2008 (co-authored with Robert Falk)
• Greenwashing – Avoiding Greenwashing: The Brave New World of Environmental Marketing Claims, Bloomberg Corporate Law Journal, September 2008 (co-authored with Peter Hsiao, Robert Falk, and Jamon Bollock)

Recent Speaking Engagements

• Engaging in Green Marketing Without Running Afoul of Federal and State Guidelines, American Conference Institute’s 22nd National Advanced Forum on Advertising Law (New York, January 2009)
• Navigating Labeling, Understanding the FTC Green Guides, Avoiding Greenwashing, Cotton Sustainability Summit (Sundance, Utah, October 2008)
• Establishing Credibility, Avoiding Greenwash!, Sustainable Brands Conference (Monterey, California, June 2008)

Representative Matters

• Aloft Media, LLC v. Yahoo! Inc. (United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas)
  Currently represents Yahoo! in two patent infringement matters involving browser and toolbar functionality.
• OpenTV, Inc. v. Liberate Technologies (United States District Court, Northern District of California)
  Represented OpenTV in a patent infringement case involving interactive television technology. The case settled before trial.
• HPD Laboratories, Inc. v. The Clorox Company (United States District Court, District of New Jersey)
  Represented The Clorox Company in a lawsuit alleging that it was infringing patents relating to consumer product packaging, and that the content of its product label constituted false advertising, in violation of the Lanham Act. The case settled before trial.
• K.C. 1986 Limited Partnership v. Reade Mfg. Co., et al. (United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit; United States District Court, Western District of Missouri)
  For more than a decade, successfully represented U.S. Borax in a CERCLA case involving a former herbicide blending facility in North Kansas City, Missouri. Following trial, obtained a ruling assigning 90% of the response costs to other past and current owners and operators, and only a 10% allocation for Borax (itself a past operator).
  Some opinions at: 472 F.3d 1009 (8th Cir. 2007); 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 74042 (W.D. Mo. 2007); 33 F. Supp. 2d 835 (W.D. Mo. 1998)
• Dowhal v. SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare (Supreme Court of California)
  Successfully represented SmithKline Beecham (now GlaxoSmithKline) in a California Proposition 65 case seeking a revised warning label on smoking cessation products. The Supreme Court of California, in a unanimous decision, affirmed the trial court’s ruling that Proposition 65’s labeling requirements as to SmithKline’s smoking cessation products are preempted under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and FDA regulations.
  Opinion at: 32 Cal. 4th 910 (Cal. 2004)
• Tillis v. Lamarque (United States District Court, Northern District of California)
  Represented inmate Gregory Tillis in a prisoner’s civil rights action involving an attack by gang members with the assistance and collusion of prison staff. Following extensive litigation, negotiated a very favorable settlement, including both monetary and injunctive relief.
  Opinion at: 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14624 (N.D. Cal. 2006)
• Waste Management of Alameda County, Inc. v. East Bay Regional Park District (United States District Court, Northern District of California)
  Successfully represented the East Bay Regional Park District in a CERCLA case involving a former landfill that was being converted into a shoreline regional park along San Francisco Bay. Following trial, obtained a ruling allocating 95% of the response costs to Waste Management, the former owner and operator of the landfill, and only 5% to the Park District, as the site’s current owner.
  Opinion at: 135 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2001)