Benjamin J. Fox

Partner | Los Angeles

bfox@mofo.com | (213) 892-5207 bfox@mofo.com
(213) 892-5207
With 25 years of litigation experience at Morrison & Foerster, clients trust Ben Fox to solve their most complex legal problems in trade secrets, copyright, trademark, and other business disputes.

Ben’s extensive trial practice focuses on high-stakes intellectual property disputes and constitutional issues, among other areas. A former co–chair of the firm’s Global Litigation Department, he also counsels clients on risk assessment and strategies for complex legal problems that cross jurisdictions and practice areas.

His industry experience includes representing clients in the electronic entertainment, software and animation, jewelry and consumer goods, and sports and gaming industries, as well as litigation involving medical devices and healthcare technology, financial services, transportation, and commercial real estate projects. He is regularly involved in “bet the company” cases for plaintiffs and defendants in trade secrets, copyright, trademark, and patent litigation, and other commercial disputes.

He is recommended by The Legal 500 in the areas of Copyright Litigation (2015–2018), Trademark Litigation (2016–2018), and Healthcare: Life Sciences (2014). He has practiced at Morrison & Foerster his entire career, joining the firm in 1997 following his graduation from the UCLA School of Law.

Show More

Experience

  • Represented startup streaming service Quibi Holdings LLC in high-profile trade secret and patent litigation concerning Quibi’s app. Shortly before Quibi’s launch, we filed a declaratory judgment action for Quibi. Eko filed its own lawsuit the next day. In April 2020, we defeated a motion for preliminary injunction that sought to interrupt Quibi’s launch. Six months later, after Quibi announced it intended to return funds to investors, we defeated a second injunction request to interfere with Quibi’s wind down. The litigation resolved in September 2021 and was widely covered in the Wall Street Journal, Hollywood Reporter, and other publications.

  • Acted as lead counsel for several Internet service providers (ISPs) in a series of multi-Doe-defendant copyright infringement lawsuits brought by owners of pornographic films that seek the ISPs’ subscribers’ personal information for the purpose of demanding “settlement” payments from them. Cases include In re AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-1,058, 752 F.3d 990 (D.C. Cir. 2014), which Mr. Fox argued in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, winning in 2014 the first precedential decision from a federal appellate court addressing “mass joinder” in BitTorrent file-sharing cases.

  • Acted as lead counsel for one or more defendants in multi-party software patent cases brought against makers and distributors of electronic entertainment products, including Babbage Holdings, LLC v. Konami Digital Entertainment, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2015); Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Harmonix Music Systems, et al. (D. Del. pending); McRO Inc. v. Namco Bandai, et al. (Fed. Cir. pending); Impulse Technology, Ltd. v. Microsoft Corp., et al. (D. Del. pending); Multiplayer Network Innovations, LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex. 2015); Wildcat IP Holdings LLC v. 4Kids Entertainment, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex. 2013); Walker Digital LLC v. 2K Games, et al. (D. Del. 2013); Impulse Technology, Ltd. v. Nintendo of America, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ohio 2012); and Software Restore Solutions, LLC v. Apple, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill. 2010).

  • Vandermost v. Bowen, 53 Cal. 4th 421 (2012). Represented the California Citizens Redistricting Commission, the state constitutional body with authority for drawing district voting lines following each U.S. Census, in the successful defense of all challenges to the Commission’s State Senate and U.S congressional district maps. Challenges were litigated in the California Supreme Court pursuant to a constitutional grant of original jurisdiction in that court.

  • 198 Cal. App. 4th 903 (2011). Argued winning appeal that affirmed a $35 million judgment for client Gramercy Investment Trust, resulting in a precedential opinion that confirms the enforceability of broad contractual waivers in contracts between sophisticated business persons.

  • (C.D. Cal. 2010). Acted as lead counsel for plaintiff Konami Digital Entertainment in high-profile litigation against its former distributor, the Upper Deck Company, accused of counterfeiting Konami’s products. Won summary judgment for a finding of liability for trademark counterfeiting and copyright infringement. Case settled during trial after defendant Upper Deck stipulated that its counterfeiting was done willfully and a permanent injunction was issued.

  • (Cal. Court of Appeal, 4th App. Dist. 2009). Counsel to Novell on an appeal from a judgment on a $33 million jury verdict based on issue and evidentiary sanctions. In December 2009, the Court of Appeal reversed the judgment against Novell on constitutional due process grounds and remanded for a new trial.

  • 144 Cal. App. 4th 1175 (2006). Represented Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum on appeal, obtaining reversal of $34 million judgment following a multi-month trial in which the Raiders claimed more than $1 billion in damages.

  • (9th Cir. 2003). Won appeal preserving victory in copyright infringement litigation that accused television studios and developers of animated television properties of infringing screenplays for the Rainbow Brite and Robotman TV series.

  • (C.D. Cal./Fed. Cir. 2003). Acted as counsel for defendant Syneron Ltd. in competitor patent litigation involving intense pulsed light devices used for skin and hair treatments. Defeated motion for preliminary injunction; case settled during pendency of plaintiff’s appeal.

  • (S.F. Super. Ct. 2000–2004). Represented a class of plaintiff-schoolchildren in a statewide challenge to substandard conditions at K–12 public schools, including a lack of textbooks, severe overcrowding, insufficient number of desks, lack of functioning bathrooms, untrained teachers, and facilities that failed to meet basic health and safety needs. Case concluded with a landmark settlement providing state-level oversight and a $1 billion commitment to improve school conditions.

Show More


Close
Feedback

Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, 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.