Benjamin J. Fox

Partner | Los Angeles

bfox@mofo.com | (213) 892-5207

bfox@mofo.com
(213) 892-5207

With more than 20 years of litigation experience at Morrison & Foerster, clients trust me to solve their most complex legal problems ranging from intellectual property to constitutional law and appeals.

Ben is the Managing Partner of the Los Angeles office. He is involved in a broad–ranging trial and appellate practice focusing on intellectual property issues, class action jurisprudence, and constitutional issues, among other areas of practice. A former co–chair of the firm’s Global Litigation Department, he also counsels clients on risk–assessment and strategy in managing complex legal problems that cross jurisdictions and practice areas.

Ben’s 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 the medical devices and health care industries, financial services, transportation, structural engineering, and commercial real estate projects. He is regularly involved in high–stakes cases for defendants and plaintiffs in copyright, trademark, patent and trade secrets litigation, and other commercial disputes.

In his appellate practice, Ben is regularly asked to substitute in following trial court proceedings handled by other lawyers or law firms, particularly in matters before the Ninth Circuit, the California Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court. He is also a go–to lawyer for petitions seeking extraordinary relief during pretrial and trial. He has served on the State Appellate Courts Judicial Evaluation Committee and is a member of the LA County Bar’s Appellate Courts Committee.

Ben is recommended by Legal 500 in the areas of copyright litigation (2015–2018), trademark litigation (2016–2018), and healthcare: life sciences (2014). He joined Morrison & Foerster in 1997 following graduation from the UCLA School of Law.

Show More

Experience

  • (Multiple venues.) Lead counsel for several Internet Service Providers 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.

  • (Multiple Venues.) Lead counsel for one or more defendants in multi–party software patent cases brought against makers and distributors of electronic entertainment products, including Virtual Gaming Tech. Inc. v. DraftKings, et al. (E.D. Tex. 2016); 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. Square Enix, 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.) 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 of 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 to issuance of a permanent injunction.

  • (Cal. Court of Appeal, 4th App. Dist. 2009.) Counsel for Novell on 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.

  • 546 F.3d 661 (9th Cir. 2008). Represented Hartford on appeal, winning a decision that breach of fiduciary duty claims in ERISA cases filed pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 1109(a) are representative actions that must be brought, if at all, by licensed counsel.

  • 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.) 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. 2000–04.)  Counsel for class of plaintiff–schoolchildren in statewide challenge to substandard conditions at K—12 public schools, including lack of textbooks, severe overcrowding, insufficient numbers 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 $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.