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. (2002, 2005)
Altera Corporation v. Xilinx, Inc.; Xilinx Inc. v. Altera Corporation
(N.D. Cal. and USITC). 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. The firm then 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)
Dowhal v. SmithKline Beecham Consumer Healthcare, et al.
(CA Superior Court, San Francisco County; CA Supreme Court). Won summary judgment in a Prop 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 Prop 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 Prop 65 action, the first holding that Prop 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)
In re JDSU Securities Litigation
(United States District Court, Northern District of California). In this case, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants violated Section 10(b) of the 1934 Act by making numerous false statements regarding JDSU business prospects. The plaintiffs also alleged defendant’s financial statements were false and misleading. Finally, the plaintiffs alleged that each of the individual defendants had engaged in illegal insider trading. Plaintiffs sought damages in excess of $20 billion based on these claims. This is one of the largest damages claims ever presented at trial in the United states. After a four week trial the jury, after less than two days of deliberation, returned a unanimous verdict on behalf of each of the defendants on every claim advanced by the plaintiffs. (2007)
United States ex rel. Richard Wilson and Chris Maranto v. Maxxam Inc., et al.
(United States District Court, Northern District of California). Obtained a favorable settlement for client in a False Claims Act case brought by two California state agency employees against Maxxam and its principal shareholder Charles Hurwitz (former owners of Pacific Lumber Co.). The claim was based on alleged fraud related to the sale of the Headwaters Forest to the United States government. Settlement was reached after parties had completed six days of a 15-day jury trial. Final amount of settlement was a small fraction compared to the original damages. There was no admission of liability by either defendant. State court dismissal on Noerr-Pennington grounds (First Amendment right to petition) was the first time this doctrine has been applied to defeat a false claims act case.