James P. Bennett

Partner

San Francisco, (415) 268-7169

Download vCard

Education

University of California, Berkeley (B.A., 1972)
;
University of California, Hastings College of the Law (J.D., 1975)

Practices

Commercial Litigation

Trials

Appellate + Supreme Court

Bar Admissions

California

As one of the firm’s most experienced trial lawyers, James Bennett brings a mastery of turning complex fact patterns into persuasive trial presentations. “James Bennett hammered the experts and gave the jury a credible, coherent story they can understand,” wrote the National Law Journal, about Jim’s first-chair leadership in In re JDS Uniphase Corp. Securities Litigation (2007). In the case, plaintiffs sought damages in excess of $20 billion which, at the time, was the largest securities class action ever to go to trial.

Mr. Bennett is a fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and an associate member of The American Board of Trial Advocates. He has first-chaired over 30 complex commercial jury trials. He has successfully defended at trial multiple cases in which damages in excess of $100 million were sought. Mr. Bennett also has extensive experience representing plaintiffs in a variety of commercial matters. His trial record includes four plaintiffs' cases in which he has obtained verdicts and judgments with a collective value in excess of $160 million.

Mr. Bennett routinely defends clients in bet-the-company litigation. He has litigated numerous cases in the intellectual property arena, including the representation of Altera Corporation in patent infringement litigation and a plaintiffs’ suit. In 2009, Mr. Bennett obtained a favorable settlement in a False Claims Act case brought by two California state agency employees against Maxxam and its principal shareholder in which the plaintiffs sought recovery and damages of over $1 billion. Mr. Bennett also received a favorable jury verdict in the defense of Mercury Companies in a trade secrets and breach-of-contract case in which plaintiff’s were seeking in excess of $150,000,000 in compensatory and punitive damages.

Mr. Bennett has also argued on numerous occasions before the California Supreme Court and Courts of Appeal and the Ninth Circuit. His most recent argument before the California Supreme Court was in the case of Dowhal v. SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare (2004) 32 Cal.4th 910, where he obtained a unanimous decision affirming the trial court’s ruling that Proposition 65’s labeling requirements as to SmithKline’s smoking cessation products is preempted under the U.S. Constitution’s Supremacy Clause by the federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act and FDA regulations.

Mr. Bennett served as firmwide Chair of the Litigation Department from 1999 to 2003. He is the recipient of the California Lawyer 2008 Attorney of the Year Award, and has been listed in San Francisco Magazine as one of Northern California's top 100 lawyers for General Litigation.

During law school, Mr. Bennett was a member of the editorial staff of the Hastings Law Journal and was elected to Order of the Coif.

Matters.

Dowhal v. SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, et al.

(CA Superior Court, San Francisco County; CA Supreme Court). Won summary judgment in a Proposition 65 suit filed against SmithKline, Johnson & Johnson, and 15 other manufacturers, marketers, and retailers of Nicoderm CQ, Nicorette, and Nicotrol, smoking cessation products. The lawsuit alleged that the pregnancy warning language on the products did not satisfy Proposition 65 requirements. The California Attorney General intervened on behalf of the plaintiff, but the California Supreme Court unanimously ruled in favor of our clients. The Supreme Court’s decision was the first favoring a defendant’s position in a Proposition 65 action, the first holding that Proposition 65 could be and was preempted by federal law, and the first ruling that the State could not defeat preemption by requiring off-label advertising. (2004)

Altera Corporation v. Xilinx, Inc.; Xilinx Inc. v. Altera Corporation

(USDC, Northern District of California and United States International Trade Commission). Successfully defended Altera Corporation in patent infringement litigation with Xilinx, Inc., its major competitor in the programmable logic device industry. In this federal action, the United States Court for the Northern District of California granted Judgment as a Matter of Law to Altera following a six-week jury trial. In June 2001, the firm represented Altera in a trial at the International Trade Commission on a patent infringement complaint brought by Xilinx. The district court granted Judgment to Altera, and a favorable settlement was reached before a post-trial decision was rendered by the Judge in the ITC action. (2001, 2005)

Altera Corporation v. Clear Logic, Incorporated

(Northern District of California). Won two-week jury trial on behalf of Altera Corporation as a plaintiff in a suit brought against Clear Logic for violation of the Federal Semiconductor Chip Protection Act and common law unfair competition. The case, which is the only one ever tried under the Federal Act, resulted in a $35-million judgment and permanent injunction in favor of Altera. This maskwork and tortious interference action was filed in 1999 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Clear Logic Inc. After a two-week jury trial before Judge James Ware, the jury found for Altera Corporation on all claims and an award was entered for Altera. We defended the case on appeal and the judgment for Altera was affirmed the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. (2001, 2005)