---

Beth S. Brinkmann is Chair of the firm’s Appellate Practice Group. She is a partner in the Washington, D.C., office, where her primary focus is on litigation in the Supreme Court of the United States and on complex and novel legal issues arising in other federal and state courts.

Ms. Brinkmann has practiced before the Supreme Court for approximately 15 years. She has argued 24 cases before the Court. Most recently, she briefed and argued three significant business cases during the October 2007 Term, involving federal preemption of state regulation affecting interstate motor carriers, the Federal Arbitration Act, and the constitutionality of a state tax on gains by an interstate business. Ms. Brinkmann regularly files briefs in the Supreme Court at the certiorari stage as well, and on behalf of significant amici at the certiorari and merits stages.

Ms. Brinkmann also appears before federal courts of appeals and state appellate courts. During 2006, she argued two cases before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and two cases before state courts of last resort.

Ms. Brinkmann’s clients have included a wide range of businesses, organizations, industries, and individuals, including regional motor carriers associations, Mattel, Inc., MeadWestvaco Corp., JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., U.S. Bank, N.A., McKesson Corp., Gen-Probe, Inc., Airports Council International-North America, the United States Chamber of Commerce, the Governor of Guam, and former federal judges. She has handled cases concerning, among other issues, federal banking laws, the Patent Act, federal transportation regulation, arbitration, RICO, the Commerce Clause, administrative deference, and a wide range of federal preemption issues. She frequently consults for other attorneys on complex litigation or federal regulatory matters pending before state and federal courts and administrative agencies. A portion of her practice involves representation of clients in meetings with federal government agencies, including the Office of the Solicitor General of the United States, regarding the involvement of the United States in appellate litigation.

Ms. Brinkmann has been named a Leading Appellate Lawyer in the Chambers USA Guide to America’s Leading Business Lawyers, listed as one of Washington’s top constitutional lawyers by the Washingtonian magazine, and identified in The Best Lawyers in America as a leader in the field of appellate law. The Legal Times named Ms. Brinkmann one of the 12 Leading Appellate Lawyers in Washington, D.C. She is also listed in Washington DC Super Lawyers as a leading appellate lawyer, and as one of the top 50 women lawyers in Washington, DC, overall.

Before joining Morrison & Foerster, Ms. Brinkmann served as Assistant to the Solicitor General of the United States, where she briefed and argued cases before the Supreme Court and regularly reviewed submissions from government attorneys in order to provide advice regarding appeals to the federal courts of appeals and government participation as amicus. Ms. Brinkmann also has worked as an Assistant Federal Public Defender, representing defendants at both the trial and appellate levels, and as an associate in a litigation firm, appearing in state and federal courts.

Ms. Brinkmann served as a law clerk to Justice Harry A. Blackmun, Supreme Court of the United States, and to Judge Phyllis A. Kravitch, United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. Ms. Brinkmann is a graduate of the University of California, Berkeley, where she received an A.B. with great distinction and graduated Phi Beta Kappa. She received her J.D. from Yale Law School, where she served as Note Editor on the Yale Law Journal.

Ms. Brinkmann serves on the board of directors of the Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit, the advisory board of the Georgetown University Law Center Supreme Court Institute, and the board of trustees of the Supreme Court Historical Society. She is a member of the Edward Coke Appellate Inn of Court. She makes frequent presentations on the Supreme Court and its docket and appellate advocacy.

Ms. Brinkmann is admitted to practice law in California and the District of Columbia.

---

Representative Matters

• Clark County, Nevada v. Vacation Village, Inc., No. 07-373 (U.S. Sup. Ct. pending). Brief for Air Line Pilots Ass’n, Air Transport Ass’n of America, Aircraft Owners and Pilots Ass’n, Airports Council International-North America, and the Regional Airline Ass’n in support of a petition for a writ of certiorari regarding federal preemption of state takings claims that would frustrate reasonable regulation of land use near airports.
• Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., No. 06-937 (U.S. Sup. Ct. pending). Brief for Gen-Probe Incorporated regarding whether the authorized sale of a patented article exhausts the patent rights in regard to the item sold, and whether conditions on the use of such an article after sale are enforceable only by contract.
• MeadWestvaco v. Illinois Dep’t of Revenue, 128 S. Ct. 1498 (2008). Argument and 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.
• Hall Street Associates v. Mattel, Inc., 128 S. Ct. 1396 (2008). Argument and brief for Mattel, Inc. regarding whether the Federal Arbitration Act permits parties to expand the grounds on which a court may vacate or modify an arbitration award under Sections 10 and 11 of the Act.
• Rowe v. New Hampshire Motor Transport Association, 128 S. Ct. 989 (2008). Argument and brief for New Hampshire Motor Transport Ass’n, Massachusetts Motor Transportation Ass’n, Inc., and Vermont Truck & Bus Ass’n, Inc. on the scope of the preemption provision of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994.
• Yax v. UPS, 127 S. Ct. 2428 (2007). Brief for UPS in opposition to certiorari petition regarding proximate cause under civil 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.
• Limtiaco v. Camacho, 127 S. Ct. 1413 (2007). Argument and brief for the Governor of Guam regarding the interpretation of the debt limitation provision of the Guam Organic Act.
• Texaco, Inc. v. Dagher, 547 U.S. 1 (2006). Brief for the American Bankers Ass’n, Consumer Bankers Ass’n, and Financial Services Roundtable regarding antitrust doctrines that govern joint ventures in the financial services industry.
• Merck KGAA v. Integra LifeSciences I, Ltd., 545 U.S. 193 (2005). Brief on behalf of Invitrogen Corp., ALYSSA, BIOCOM, Affymetrix, Inc., Diversa Corp., Quantum Dot Corp., Sangamo BioSciences, Inc., and Symyx Technologies, Inc. addressing the issue of research tool patents.
• Granholm v. Heald, 544 U.S. 460 (2005). Brief for the Cargo Airline Ass’n regarding the preemptive effect of the Commerce Clause and of the Federal Aviation Administration Authorization Act of 1994 on laws regulating the delivery of wine by cargo carriers.
• KP Permanent Make-Up Inc. v. Lasting Impression I, Inc., 543 U.S. 111 (2004). Argument and brief on behalf of businesses in the permanent make-up industry, against competitor’s claim of fair use of their trademark in the term “micro colors”® for make-up pigments.
• Household Credit Serv. v. Pfennig, 541 U.S. 232 (2004). Brief for the American Bankers Ass’n, MasterCard International, Visa U.S.A. Inc., and others regarding judicial deference to a Federal Reserve Board regulation promulgated under the Truth in Lending Act.
• Verizon v. Trinko, 540 U.S. 398 (2004).  Brief for UPS, Visa U.S.A., Honeywell International, and Eastman Kodak Company, in support of a petition for a writ of certiorari and also on the merits after review was granted, regarding invalidity of the essential facilities and monopoly leveraging antitrust doctrines. 
• Heimmermann v. First Union Mortgage Corp., 539 U.S. 970 (2003). Brief in opposition to a certiorari petition on behalf of BankAmerica Corp. defending a court of appeals’ victory against class action suits brought under the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act.
• Beneficial National Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1 (2003).  Brief for the American Bankers Ass’n, America’s Community Bankers, Consumer Bankers Ass’n, and the Financial Services Roundtable regarding the complete preemption of state usury claims by the National Bank Act. 
• Gonzaga University v. Doe, 536 U.S. 273 (2002). Argument and brief for former university student who was seeking to enforce the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act through 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
• Levine v. First National Bank of Commerce, 948 So.2d 1051 (Louisiana Sup. Ct. 2006). Argument and brief for JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. regarding the breadth of due-on-sale clauses in mortgage agreements and the scope of federal preemption.
• Winter v. Northrop Grumman Corp., No. 2006-1001 (Fed. Cir. 2006). Argument and brief to defend decision of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals in favor of Northrop Grumman on government contract dispute.