Morrison Foerster is an international law firm with lawyers practicing throughout the United States, Asia, and Europe. Click to discover more.

mofo_share_image.jpg

Morrison Foerster

common-default.jpeg

Terms / Notices

Cookies

Privacy Policy

Reporting Hotline

Attorney Advertising

Alumni

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

  Facebook

MoFo Facebook

YouTube

MoFo Youtube

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Appellate + Supreme Court

You have not solved the recaptcha challenge yet or session expired, try again.

Email Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a>, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

Feedback

mofo-logo-2022.svg

People

Capabilities

Resources

About

Culture

Offices

Careers

Stay Connected

Clients rely on Morrison Foerster's appellate and Supreme Court practice to win appeals in the U.S. Court system. Learn more today.

Supreme Court Practice | Appellate Lawyers

Case Studies

Morrison Foerster FCBA Bench & Bar Dinner

2025 Bench & Bar Conference

A Dialogue Between Bench and Bar: Tips from Both Sides

Cutting Edge Issues in FCC Litigation

FCBA Breakfast Club

CLE International's 2025 IP CLE

Events

Court-Involved Supervised Release Shows Promising Results

Sec Lit IQ: MoFo’s Quarterly Federal Securities Litigation and Delaware Corporate Litigation Newsletter (Q4 2024)

CFTC Efforts to Regulate Election Betting

Second Circuit Clarifies the Scope of Common Law Sovereign Immunity in Criminal Actions

When the Right “Accrues”: Corner Post Extends the Statute of Limitations under the Administrative Procedure Act

Supreme Court Strikes Down Chevron Deference, Changing the Landscape of Agency Rulemaking

Insights

Is 1st Circuit the New Center for Trump Policy Challenges?

MoFo Associate Sees a Familiar Face During Her First Appellate Argument: Justice Breyer

The Hottest Topics Appellate Attys Are Tracking In 2025

Will the 9th Circuit Still be Center Stage in Trump Policy Challenges?

Morrison Foerster Ranked as a Leading Firm by Best Lawyers

Morrison Foerster Recognized as a Litigation Powerhouse in Benchmark Litigation USA 2025

News

Sign Up

Brian Matsui co-chairs Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice. Brian is a go-to appellate advocate for sophisticated clients in complex appeals. Brian has a nationwide appellate practice. He has argued many cases in federal and state appellate courts throughout the country, winning appeals involving federal preemption, securities litigation and enforcement, consumer class actions, and intellectual property. He has led appeals in the D.C., Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuits. His arguments include significant victories in class action appeals and in appeals for leading financial services companies, with multiple victories in the Ninth Circuit, where he clerked. Brian recently has gone five for six when representing appellants, including a precedential victory in the Ninth Circuit in a licensing dispute concerning alleged patent misuse. He also argued and won a D.C. Circuit appeal against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about the retroactivity of part of the Dodd-Frank Act. As a result of Brian’s win, the SEC had to change its enforcement practices against certain securities industry professionals.Clients frequently turn to Brian for his substantial experience with appeals in the Federal Circuit, praising him as “an invaluable advocate in patent matters” (Chambers USA). Brian has won 13 of his last 15 appeals in that Court. His arguments before the Federal Circuit include winning appeals from district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the International Trade Commission. He has handled appeals in a myriad of industries, including mobile devices, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, semiconductors, and software.Brian also plays a key role on trial teams, advising clients on both critical legal issues and appellate preservation. He recently argued and prevailed against a summary judgment invalidity motion in a case involving Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.’s revolutionary antibody recycling technology, which ultimately led to a $775 million settlement on the eve of trial for Chugai.A former law clerk for the United States Supreme Court, Brian has authored many briefs in that Court, including on important constitutional and statutory interpretation issues. He often represents clients’ interests in amicus briefs in significant Supreme Court cases affecting the business community.Leading publications have recognized Brian for his appellate skills. The Legal 500 US recommends him for appellate litigation, and the National Law Journal named Brian a “Minority 40 Under 40.”Brian also dedicates significant time to pro bono matters. He argued and won two significant appeals—in the Second and Ninth Circuits—obtaining reversals of judgments that had denied private rights of action under the Child Welfare Act in precedential decisions. Brian also led the Morrison Foerster team who co-counseled a successful Eighth Amendment challenge to Florida’s imposition of a “life without the possibility of parole” sentence to a juvenile offender convicted of a non-homicide crime.For years, Brian chaired the ABA’s seven-person Standing Committee for Amicus Curiae Briefs. He served on the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s amicus committee and co-chaired the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association’s amicus committee. Brian served as an appellate lawyer representative for the Ninth Circuit. Brian also serves on the board of directors for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.Before entering private practice, Brian clerked on the United States Supreme Court for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. He also clerked for Judge Pamela Ann Rymer in the Ninth Circuit and Judge David F. Levi in the Eastern District of California.While in law school, Brian served as managing editor of Volume 51 of the Stanford Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif.<h4>Representative Oral Arguments</h4><ul><li><a href="https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=22-1260_02102023.mp3" target="_blank">SNIPR Technologies Ltd. v. Rockefeller University </a>(Fed. Cir.) Prevailed in a precedential decision reversing the Patent Office’s interpretation of the America Invents Act (AIA) that subjected patents post-dating the Act to pre-AIA interference proceedings. The decision revived five of SNIPR’s patents related to CRISPR technology.</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/220114-broadcom-corporation-v-renesas-matsui" target="_blank">Renesas Electronics Corporation v. Broadcom Corporation</a> (12:40) (Fed. Cir.) Successfully argued and briefed multiple appeals from an International Trade Commission (ITC) decision and several Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions related to an ITC investigation initiated by Broadcom involving systems-on-chip powering automobile infotainment systems.</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/210706-cr-bard-v-medline-industries" target="_self">C.R. Bard Inc. v. Medline Industries, Inc.</a> (0:45) (Fed. Cir.) Won vacatur of three Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions on obviousness.</li><li><a href="https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=21-1745_03102022.mp3" target="_blank">Advanced Voice Recognition Systems, Inc. v. Apple Inc.</a> (14:30) (Fed. Cir.) Secured a complete victory in appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board that all challenged patent claims were unpatentable.</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/200515-william-paulus-v-ocera-therapeutics-inc.html" target="_self">William Paulus v. Ocera Therapeutics, Inc.</a> (13:25) (9th Cir.) Successfully argued and briefed appeal in a putative shareholder class action involving a tender offer.</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/200410-kurtz-v-costco.html" target="_blank">Kurtz v. Costco Wholesale Corporation </a>(9:23) (2d Cir.) Successfully petitioned for review of a class certification decision, then argued and obtained a remand for the district court to reconsider its certification decision and an eventual reversal on an injunctive class certification decision.</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/161117-gregory-bartko-v-sec.html" target="_self">Gregory Bartko v. SEC</a> (0:53) (D.C. Cir.) Successfully argued and obtained precedential ruling that the Securities and Exchange Commission could not retroactively apply Dodd-Frank’s industry-wide sanctions on securities professionals for certain securities violations.</li></ul>

Brian Matsui

Partner

Deanne Maynard, co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice, is widely recognized as one of the nation’s leading appellate advocates. She has argued 14 cases before the United States Supreme Court and 75 times in appellate courts across the country.In ranking Deanne in Band 1, Chambers USA reports that she is described as a “magnificent and top-notch lawyer” who is “wicked smart.” She is “extremely thoughtful, even-keeled and has a wonderful presence in the courtroom." Legal 500 calls Deanne “one of the finest advocates in the Supreme Court bar,” remarking that “if she is on your team, great. If she’s on the other side, be ready.”Deanne’s winning Supreme Court arguments involve a wide range of issues and industries, including life sciences (Sandoz v. Amgen), intellectual property (MedImmune v. Genentech), antitrust (Pacific Bell v. linkLine), financial services (Ransom v. FIA Card Services), and bankruptcy (RadLAX v. Amalgamated Bank). In Sandoz v. Amgen, the Supreme Court ruled for her client in a closely watched case involving the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, which provides an approval path for biosimilars. Law360 named Deanne to its exclusive list of <a href="http://media2.mofo.com/documents/171212-mvp-deanne-maynard.pdf">Appellate MVPs</a> for this “big victory,” dubbing her a “Legal Lion” three separate times for her work on appeals in this case. LMG Life Sciences also named Deanne <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/news/190920-deanne-maynard-appellate-litigator-of-the-year.html">Appellate Litigator of the Year</a>.Deanne argues complex, high stakes cases in courts of appeals nationwide. Clients turn to Deanne for crisp, clear briefs and exceptional oral advocacy. Her appellate wins run a gamut of issues from arbitration to antitrust, class actions to contracts, copyright to Commerce Clause, infringement to invalidity, and securities law to statutory interpretation. Clients praise her as “an incredible oral advocate, very prepared and formidable” (Chambers USA), and “a tireless advocate with sterling client skills” (Legal 500).Deanne has particular experience in the Federal and Ninth Circuits. She has argued more than 40 appeals in the Federal Circuit, including wins for both patentees and defendants on a wide range of technologies. Chambers USA ranked Deanne in Band 1 for Intellectual Property Appeals, describing her as “renowned for her track record in bet-the-company disputes.” She also serves as Chair of the Federal Circuit’s Advisory Council, which is a conduit between the Court and the public. In the Ninth Circuit, her many wins include a decision from the en banc Court holding large parts of a California statute unconstitutional as well as a panel decision vacating a $60 million jury verdict.Deanne is annually recommended as a leading lawyer by Chambers USA, Chambers Global, Legal 500 US, and Best Lawyers in America. She is President of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, an invitation-only organization recognizing distinguished appellate lawyers. Deanne also serves on the Board of Trustees of the U.S. Supreme Court Historical Society and is a Master in, and Past President of, the Coke Appellate Inn of Court.Deanne is a leader within Morrison Foerster as well, chairing its partner compensation committee and serving on the firm’s leadership team.Before joining the firm, Deanne served as an Assistant to the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice for five years. She previously was a partner at another major law firm.After law school, Deanne clerked two terms on the United States Supreme Court, one for Justice Stephen Breyer and another for Justice Lewis Powell (Ret.) and Justice John Paul Stevens. Before that, Deanne clerked two years for Judge Stanley Harris on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.Deanne graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where she was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. She earned a B.A. in English, with distinction, from the University of Virginia.<h4 dir="ltr">Supreme Court Arguments</h4><ul dir="ltr"><li>Sandoz v. Amgen <a href="/resources/video-audio/170426-sandoz-v-amgen" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Involving the Supreme Court’s first foray into the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act</li><li>RadLAX v. Amalgamated Bank <a href="/resources/video-audio/120423-radlax-v-amalgamated-bank" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Whether a debtor can sell a secured asset free and clear without permitting the lienholder to credit-bid</li><li>Pacific Bell v. linkLine <a href="/resources/video-audio/081208-pacific-bell-v-linkline" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Whether Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act permits a price squeeze claim in the absence of a duty to deal</li><li>MedImmune v. Genentech <a href="/resources/video-audio/061004-medimmune-v-genentech" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Whether a patent licensee must breach a license agreement before seeking a declaration of patent invalidity</li><li>Ransom v. FIA Card Services <a href="/resources/video-audio/101004-ransom-v-fia-card-services" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Involving when a debtor without lease payments may take a car-ownership deduction</li><li>EC Term of Years Trust v. U.S. Whether the federal tax code relegates a trust to a wrongful levy action as its exclusive remedy</li><li>Marshall v. Marshall Involving the scope of the probate exception to federal jurisdiction</li><li>U.S. v. Olson Involving the federal government’s sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act</li><li>Wilkinson v. Austin Whether the procedures governing placement of prisoners in supermax prison satisfied due process</li><li>Greenlaw v. U.S. Involving the power of the court of appeals in the absence of a cross-appeal</li><li>Dean v. U.S. Whether the accidental discharge of a firearm during a robbery results in a mandatory minimum prison term</li><li>Carcieri v. Salazar Involving the Secretary of the Interior’s authority to take land into trust for Indians</li><li>Boulware v. U.S. Whether a profitless corporation’s diversion of funds to a shareholder was nontaxable</li><li dir="ltr">Watson v. U.S. Whether trading drugs for a firearm was “using” a firearm “during and in relation” to a drug trafficking crime</li></ul><h4 dir="ltr">Representative Appellate Arguments</h4><ul dir="ltr"><li>In re Cirba (Fed. Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/210903-in-re-cirba" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Successfully defeated attempt to revive a jury’s patent infringement verdict against VMware</li><li>Phigenix v. Genentech (Fed. Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/170426-phigenix-v-genentech" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Secured noninfringement judgment for Genentech</li><li>Zabriskie v. Fannie Mae  (9th Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/181018-zabriskie-v-fannie-mae" target="_self">(video)</a> Won reversal for Fannie Mae of a Fair Credit Reporting Act judgment</li><li>Washington University v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (3d Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/161108-washington-university-v-wisconsin-alumni" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Obtained reversal for Washington University in suit for royalties due under contract with WARF</li><li>Nevro v. Boston Scientific (Fed. Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/191202-nevro-v-boston-scientific" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Won reversal of district court judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness</li><li>National Business Aviation Assoc. v. Huerta (D.C. Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/180514-aviation-v-huerta" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Successfully defended the City of Santa Monica against a challenge to its settlement with the FAA about its municipal airport</li><li>C.R. Bard v. Angiodynamics (Fed. Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/200601-cr-bard-v-angiodynamics" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Won reversal of district court judgment of noninfringement, no willfulness, and invalidity, reviving client’s infringement case on three patents</li><li>Flores v. UPS & Pocino Foods v. UPS (Consolidated) (9th Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/190409-flores-v-ups" target="_self">(video)</a> Secured judgment for UPS on two putative RICO and breach-of-contract class actions about its Next Day Air services</li><li>Residential Capital v. Federal Housing Finance Agency (2d Cir.) Successfully obtained a remand in a case stemming from the ResCap bankruptcy</li><li>BASF v. Johnson Matthey (Fed. Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/171005-basf-argument" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Won reversal of an invalidity ruling against patentee BASF, reviving its patent claims</li><li>Holl v. U.S. District Court (9th Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/190419-holl-v-us-district-court" target="_self">(video)</a> Defeated a mandamus petition against UPS, successfully defending its arbitration provision containing a class-action waiver</li><li>Interactive Digital Software Association v. St. Louis County, Missouri (8th Cir.) Successfully argued a First Amendment challenge to an ordinance regulating video games</li><li>In Re: Tremont Securities Law (2d Cir.) Secured dismissal for a major accounting firm of a putative class action regarding a Madoff-related fund</li><li>Estate of Graham v. Sotheby’s (9th Cir.) (en banc) <a href="/resources/video-audio/141216-estate-of-graham-v-sothebys" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Won invalidation under the Commerce Clause of parts of a California artist resale royalty law</li><li>In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation (9th Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/111206-atm-fee-antitrust-litigation" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Prevailed in a putative nationwide antitrust class action against one of the largest U.S. ATM networks</li><li>Augme Technologies v. Yahoo! (Fed. Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/131205-augme-technologies-v-yahoo" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Secured a noninfringement judgment for Yahoo! in a suit involving Internet display advertising</li><li>Lower Elwha Klallam Indian Tribe v. Lummi Nation (9th Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/170830-lummi-nation-argument" target="_self">(video)</a> Won a reversal for the Lummi Nation, reclaiming its historic treaty rights</li><li>Warsaw Orthopedic v. NuVasive (Fed. Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/141201-warsaw-orthopedic-v-nuvasive" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Obtained vacatur of a jury’s $101 million patent damages award</li><li>Momenta v. Amphastar (Fed. Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/150504-momenta-v-amphastar" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Successfully argued for a patentee that conduct was unprotected by the Hatch-Waxman Act safe harbor</li><li dir="ltr">Neurovision Medical Products v. NuVasive (9th Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/120605-neurovision-medical-products-v-nuvasive" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Obtained vacatur of a jury’s $60 million trademark verdict</li></ul>

Deanne E. Maynard

<div class="li-text-orange">Joe Palmore co-chairs Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice. Chambers USA describes him as “an outstanding oral advocate,” who is “calm, focused, effective and doesn’t back down,” and has “complete command of the facts.” Joe “writes great briefs” (Chambers USA), with one client recounting that “the Court mirrored the language he thoughtfully chose in its ultimate order” (Legal 500).Joe has argued 13 cases in the U.S. Supreme Court. Law360 called one of them (Thole v. U.S. Bank) a “landmark ruling” that “made huge waves in the ERISA litigation arena” and named another (Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian) one of the “biggest environmental law decisions” of the year. Joe’s oral argument before the Supreme Court on the preemptive scope of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) in CTS Corp. v. Waldburger was described in the National Law Journal as “brilliant” and a “template for anyone arguing a statutory case before these nine justices in the future.”Joe’s practice extends to federal and state appellate courts across the country, where he has handled appeals on issues as varied as antitrust, class actions, communications, false advertising, intellectual property, contract disputes, and securities. Joe has secured important victories in the Second Circuit, where he clerked. For example, he prevailed in a securities class action for an online marketplace and a fraud case against an investment bank. A <a href="/resources/news/210426-no-circuit-split.html" target="_self">Reuters columnist</a> called one of Joe’s Second Circuit wins a “major ruling” that “put significant qualifiers” on constitutional standing to sue in data breach cases.Joe also has a successful track record in the Ninth Circuit, including winning for a software company in a securities class action, a beverage company defending against an antitrust suit and an equipment manufacturer embroiled in a dispute over U.S. discovery for foreign litigation. One of Joe’s victories in the Federal Circuit was described by another practitioner as having “saved from the fire tens of thousands of patents that would have gone up in smoke.” Joe frequently appears before New York state appellate courts, having argued and won appeals in the New York Court of Appeals and the Appellate Division, First Department. He has also handled appeals in other state appellate courts, including those of California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Kentucky.Before joining Morrison Foerster, Joe served as an Assistant to the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice. During his nearly five years in the Solicitor General’s Office, Joe represented the United States in the Supreme Court on a range of civil, criminal, and regulatory cases. He received the Attorney General’s Award for Exceptional Service—the Department of Justice’s highest honor for employee performance—and the Environmental Protection Agency General Counsel’s medal.Before working for the Justice Department, Joe spent three years as Deputy General Counsel at the Federal Communications Commission, where he oversaw all litigation involving constitutional, statutory, and administrative-law challenges to the agency’s actions and presented oral argument in the D.C. Circuit and other federal courts of appeals. His FCC experience includes virtually all aspects of communications regulation, including broadcast, cable, wireless, wireline, and Internet.Joe clerked for Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg of the U.S. Supreme Court, Judge John Gleeson of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and Judge Dennis Jacobs of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York. Joe earned his J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law, his M.A. in legal history from the University of Virginia, and his A.B. magna cum laude from Harvard University.Joe is a Fellow in the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, selected for his distinction as an appellate lawyer. He is also a board member of the Historical Society of the District of Columbia Circuit; a master in, and former officer of, the Coke Appellate Inn at Court; a member of the Technology Litigation Advisory Committee of the U.S. Chamber Litigation Center; and a former co-chair of the Federal Communications Bar Association’s judicial practice committee.He is recommended annually by Chambers USA, Legal 500, and Best Lawyers for appellate law.</div><h4>Supreme Court Arguments</h4><ul class="li-text-orange"><li class="li-text-orange"><a href="/resources/video-audio/250121-mclaughlin-chiropractic-assoc-v-mckesson" target="_self">McLaughlin Chiropractic Assoc. v. McKesson Corp.</a> (28:16) Whether the Hobbs Act’s grant of exclusive jurisdiction to courts of appeals to review FCC orders bars collateral review of the merits of FCC orders in private-party litigation</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/200113-thole-v-u-s-bank.html" target="_self">Thole v. U. S. Bank, N. A.</a> (28:15) Whether Article III of the Constitution requires a plaintiff to demonstrate individual financial loss or the imminent risk of financial loss to assert a fiduciary duty claim against a pension plan</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/191203-atlantic-richfield-v-christian.html" target="_self">Atlantic Richfield Co. v. Christian</a> (28:10) Whether state-law pollution clean-up remedies are barred by the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/140423-cts-corp-waldburger.html" target="_self">CTS Corp. v. Waldburger</a> (16:22) Whether the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit correctly interpreted the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) to apply to statutes of repose as well as to statutes of limitations</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/140122-abramski-v-united-states.html" target="_self">Abramski v. United States</a> (26:01) Involving the materiality of a false statement made when purchasing a firearm</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/131113-fernandez-california.html" target="_self">Fernandez v. California</a> (42:27) Whether the Fourth Amendment prohibits a warrantless search of a residence when the defendant has previously objected to a search but is no longer present and the co-tenant consents</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/121031-florida-harris.html" target="_self">Florida v. Harris</a> (16:55) Whether a drug-detection dog’s alert to the exterior of a vehicle provides an officer with probable cause to conduct a warrantless search of the interior of the vehicle</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/130320-horne-department-agriculture.html" target="_self">Horne v. Department of Agriculture</a> (26:50) Involving jurisdictional requirements for Takings Clause claims</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/121127-us-airways-inc-mccutchen.html" target="_self">US Airways v. McCutchen</a> (21:18) Involving the limits on equitable relief available in suits against ERISA plans by beneficiaries and participants</li><li><a href="http://www.mofo.com/resources/video-audio/111011-pacific-operators-offshore-valladolid.html">Pacific Operators Offshore v. Valladolid</a> (25:36) Involving the territorial limits on compensation available under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/120111-roberts-v-sea-land-services.html" target="_self">Roberts v. Sea-Land Services</a> (27:53) Involving benefit calculations under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/110322-borough-duryea-guarnieri.html" target="_self">Borough of Duryea v. Guarnieri</a> (19:16) Whether state and local government employees may sue their employers for retaliation under the First Amendment’s Petition Clause when they petition the government on matters of private concern</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/101208-chase-bank-usa-mccoy.html" target="_self">Chase Bank USA v. McCoy</a> (17:23) Whether Regulation Z of the Truth in Lending Act requires a creditor to give cardholders advance notice any time they raise the interest rate for default</li></ul><h4>Representative Appellate Arguments</h4><ul class="li-text-orange"><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/250318-divx-v-harman-int-l" target="_self">DivX v. Harman Int’l </a>(2:13:08) (New York Appellate Division, First Department) Secured victory on all appeal and cross-appeal issues in commercial dispute</li><li class="li-text-orange"><a href="/resources/video-audio/231005-klin-v-cloudera-inc" target="_self">Klin v. Cloudera, Inc.</a> (12:34) (9th Cir.) Secured affirmance of dismissal of securities fraud suit for failure to allege falsity</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/221013-wamai-v-industrial-bank-of-korea" target="_self">Wamai v. Industrial Bank of Korea</a> (10:51) (2d Cir.) Secured affirmance of forum non conveniens dismissal of fraudulent conveyance claims against foreign bank</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/211210-andrew-cohen-v-apple-inc" target="_self">Cohen v. Apple Inc.</a> (19:10) (9th Cir.) Successfully defended dismissal of state-law claims as preempted by Communications Act</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/210901-veroblue-farms-usa-inc-v-canaccord-genuity-llc" target="_self">VeroBlue Farms USA Inc. v. Canaccord Genuity LLC</a> (14:17) (2d Cir.) Successfully defended dismissal of fraud claim against investment bank</li><li><a href="https://www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/oralargument/audio/22-1379_22-1380_McLarenv.UPS.mp3" target="_blank">McLaren v. The UPS Store Inc.</a> (0:41 & 46:04) (3d Cir.) Secured reversal of order remanding cases to state court</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/211030-cho-v-blackberry-ltd.html" target="_self">Cho et al. v. BlackBerry Limited et al.</a> (16:12) (2d Cir.) Successfully defended dismissal of named plaintiffs’ individual securities claims on res judicata grounds in putative securities class action</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/200409-richardson-v-the-ups-store.html" target="_self">Richardson v. The UPS Store, Inc.</a> (35:34) (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court) Secured win on question certified by federal district court on meaning of Massachusetts notary statutes</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/180705-firefighters-retirement-consulting-services-group.html" target="_self">Firefighters’ Retirement System, et al. v. Consulting Services Group</a> (15:34) (5th Cir.) Secured reversal of district court and dismissal with prejudice of accounting malpractice suit as time-barred</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/190418-altayyar-v-etsy.html" target="_self">Altayyar v. Etsy, Inc.</a> (08:42) (2d Cir.) Secured dismissal of securities fraud case</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/180112-raytheon-company-indigo-systems-corporation.html" target="_self">Raytheon Company v. Indigo Systems Corporation</a> (12:49) (Fed. Cir.) Defeated attempt to upend jury verdict of no-liability in long-running trade secrets case</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/190102-first-advantage-v-lexisnexis.html" target="_self">First Advantage LNS, Inc., et al. v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc.</a> (1:29:50) (New York Appellate Division, First Department) Secured victory for LexisNexis in significant contract dispute</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/171207-nikon-corporation-asml-us.html" target="_self">Nikon Corporation v. ASML US, Inc.</a> (33:50) (9th Cir.) Secured U.S. discovery for use in foreign patent litigation</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/161020-odunbaku-v-odunbaku.html" target="_self">Odunbaku v. Odunbaku</a> (00:11) (New York Court of Appeals) Secured a unanimous ruling for client seeking child support and established important procedural protections for litigants in New York’s family courts</li><li>Bank v. Uber Technologies, Inc. (2d Cir.) Obtained dismissal of a Telephone Consumer Protection Act suit on the ground that the call was political speech</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/160719-helping-hand-tool-environmental-protection.html" target="_self">Helping Hand Tools et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency et al.</a> (32:09) (9th Cir.) Secured a victory in a case that set an important precedent for regulation of greenhouse gas emissions from combustion of renewable biofuels</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/160506-immersion-corp-htc-corp.html" target="_self">Immersion Corp. v. HTC Corp.</a> (00:07) (Fed. Cir.) Securing reversal of district court, successfully defended the timeliness of Immersion’s patent application and, by extension, those of tens of thousands of patent owners whose patents were at risk of invalidation</li><li>Nelson Coniglio, et al. v. Bank of America, NA (11th Cir.) Secured reversal of default judgment against Bank of America</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/150915-gregory-berry-lexisnexis-risk-information.html" target="_self">Gregory Berry v. LexisNexis Risk & Information</a> (28:30) (4th Cir.) Defended settlement of one of the largest class actions ever certified from objector challenges</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/150325-gnc-corporation-marketing-sales-practices.html" target="_self">In re: GNC Corporation; Triflex Products Marketing and Sales Practices Litigation</a> (15:42) (4th Cir.) Secured dismissal of false-labelling claim against GNC</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/091016-core-communications-inc-fcc.html" target="_self">Core Communications, Inc. v. FCC</a> (23:01) (D.C. Cir.) Successfully defended FCC’s intercarrier compensation rules</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/080313-star-wireless-llc-fcc.html" target="_self">Star Wireless LLC v. FCC, et al.</a> (16:40) (D.C. Cir.) Defeated challenge to imposition of monetary forfeiture for violation of wireless auction anti-collusion rules</li></ul>

Joseph Palmore

Panel Opinion – Oral Argument Techniques From Judge Patricia Millett, Joe Palmore, and Prof. Tiffany Wright

Beyond the Holding: A Nuanced Look into the Federal Circuit's Patent Decisions (Episode 6)

More IPR Constitutional Challenges & More Attorneys' Fees

Beyond the Holding – A Nuanced Look at the Federal Circuit’s Patent Decisions

Appellate + Supreme Court

Insights

Insights

News

News

Events

Events

Video + Audio

Video + Audio

Podcasts

Podcasts