Contact: Arturo J. González
Unlike most large law firms, Morrison & Foerster tries cases on a regular basis. We try cases throughout the United States
for plaintiffs and defendants, and take pride in the diverse trial teams that serve our clients. Our trial work covers a vast
substantive area, including patent infringement, contract disputes, unfair business practices, fraud, consumer class actions,
antitrust, securities, white collar defense, product liability and mass torts, insurance coverage and bad faith, discrimination
claims, and civil rights. Our partners have tried hundreds of cases to judges and juries. In addition, we have tried hundreds
of cases to arbitrators and administrative bodies.
The mission of our Trial Practice Group is twofold: (1) to ensure that our lawyers are trained on the requisite skills essential
to successfully trying a case; and (2) to pool the resources and experiences of our trial lawyers to maximize the work product
and knowledge that is available to service our clients, and thus to more efficiently and effectively prepare our cases for
trial.
Our recent trial work includes our successful defense of JDSU in a four week jury trial in federal court in Oakland, California,
where we won a complete defense verdict on behalf of JDSU and three former executives on all claims in a class action alleging
securities fraud and insider trading; a victory in a patent claims against EchoStar before the International Trade Commission;
and the acquittal of a former sales executive accused of conspiracy and other counts under the federal Anti-Kickback law.
Trial Preparation Philosophy
In an ideal world, all of our clients’ cases would be resolved without a trial. Litigation, and trial in particular, is stressful
and expensive. Thus, from the moment we begin working on a case, we are looking for efficient ways to resolve the dispute.
However, while we recognize that trials are expensive, and that most cases settle, we prepare each case as if it were going
to trial. We do this because preparing the case for trial is the best way to position a case for favorable settlement. If,
after exhausting all reasonable settlement avenues, the case does not settle, this planning leaves us well-positioned to present
our client’s case to a judge or jury.
Our Firm also recognizes the significant demographic changes taking place in the United States. In most of this country’s
large metropolitan markets, judges (and perhaps more importantly, jurors) are becoming increasingly diverse. Because of the
Firm’s long-standing philosophy of recruiting, training, and advancing women and lawyers of color, we are able to staff our
cases with trial teams that reflect the diversity of the jurors who will decide our client’s case.
Representative Matters
- After a four-week jury trial in federal court in Oakland, California, Morrison & Foerster won a complete defense verdict on
behalf of JDSU (NASDAQ: JDSU) and three former executives on all claims in a class action alleging securities fraud and insider
trading. This is only the second defense verdict in a securities class action since the passage of the Reform Act in 1995,
and only the fifth securities class action even to reach verdict since then. The rarity of a jury verdict for the defense
in such cases was highlighted by the Wall Street Journal, which compared the outcome to a “Cambodian Forest Ox,” one of the
most exotic mammals.
- Obtained a defense verdict for EchoStar in a case where the plaintiff sued essentially the entire cable and satellite television
industry, alleging that it invented the digital video recorder (DVR) in 1991. All defendants other than EchoStar settled shortly
before trial, leaving EchoStar as the sole defendant. After over a week in trial, the jury found all of the asserted claims
invalid as anticipated, obvious, and lacking an adequate written description. This was a rare jury trial win for defendants
in the Eastern District of Texas.
- Successfully represented inventor in a patent infringement suit against Microsoft. The suit, filed in Los Angeles federal
court, involved a software application that links an Excel spreadsheet to an Access database in a live link fashion. After
a four week trial, the jury awarded our client, Mr. Armando Amado, $8.96 million for sales of the software between March 1997
and July 2003. Mr. Amado developed the program in 1990 and then approached Microsoft to sell the program to them in 1992,
which they declined to purchase. Mr. Amado received his patent in 1994. The Court will be awarding additional damages for
the time period July 2003 to present.
- Represented Oakland Coliseum and a former director in a four month trial in Sacramento stemming from the Raiders return to
Oakland. Raiders alleged fraud, negligent misrepresentation and bad faith, and sought $1 billion in damages. Jury found no
fraud or bad faith, returned a defense verdict for the director, and awarded the Raiders $34 million for negligent misrepresentation.
The Raiders dismissed their case against the Director in exchange for a waiver of costs. The appellate court then reversed
the verdict against the Coliseum to complete the defense victory.
- Successfully prosecuted claims by Altera, a Silicon Valley semiconductor chip designer, that Clear Logic infringed the copyrighted
mask work designs of Altera's semiconductor chips and tortiously interfered with Altera's software contracts with customers.
Won 2-week jury trial on all claims and secured a $36 million judgment and permanent injunction order.
- Prosecuted patent case on behalf of University of California against Genentech over a pioneering biotechnology patent involving
human growth hormone. After six-week jury trial in the Northern District of California, the case settled for $200,000,000,
one of the largest settlements in the history of patent law.
- Obtained defense verdict for Bank of America in class action alleging fraud and unfair business practices relating to installment
sales contracts, after one week jury trial in Henderson County, Texas.
- Prosecuted infringement claim on behalf of Electro Scientific Industries to enforce its rights governing he use of lasers
in semiconductor manufacturing. Following six-day trial in federal court in Oakland, jury found willful infringement and awarded
our client $13.1 million.
