---

Mr. 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 patent infringement, trade secrets, false advertising, CERCLA/Superfund, California’s Proposition 65, NEPA, and constitutional conflict preemption. His clients have spanned various industries, including, for example, mining companies, consumer product manufacturers, technology companies, pharmaceutical companies, financial institutions, consumer retailers, food product companies, and restaurants.

In addition, Mr. Beard is a member of Morrison & Foerster’s Cleantech practice group. In this rapidly evolving area, he is currently focused on issues surrounding false advertising allegations relating to “green” claims made by companies in connection with consumer products and services, as well as 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 e-Discovery Task Force, IP Litigation practice group, and Trial practice group.

Mr. Beard has also been active in Morrison & Foerster’s pro bono program, having successfully represented an inmate in a prisoner’s civil rights action brought against prison guards at California’s San Quentin State Prison, a single mother in a retaliatory lawsuit brought against her by a former employer, a middle school student in a school expulsion proceeding in Oakland, and an inmate in a prisoner’s civil rights action brought against prison guards and management at Salinas Valley State Prison. He currently represents a correctional officer in a lawsuit challenging the use within California prisons of “peacekeepers” — influential inmates (often gang members) who are used by prison officials to instill discipline among other prison inmates in exchange for illegal favors and preferred treatment, including such things as prison management-condoned drug trafficking, pornography trafficking, and inmate assaults.

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.

---

Representative Matters

• 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 Inc. in a CERCLA case involving property located in North Kansas City, Missouri, which was contaminated by herbicide manufacturing operations. Following trial, obtained a 90% response costs allocation against other past and current owners and operators, and only a 10% allocation for Borax (itself a past operator). This matter is currently on appeal to the Eighth Circuit.
  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 95% allocation against Waste Management, the former owner and operator of the landfill, and a 5% allocation for the Park District, as the site’s current owner.
  Opinion at: 135 F. Supp. 2d 1071 (N.D. Cal. 2001)