Deanne E. Maynard

For more than 20 years, Deanne Maynard, co-chair of Morrison & Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice, has briefed and argued significant appeals in the United States Supreme Court and appellate courts across the country. She has argued 14 cases before the Supreme Court and filed over 100 briefs in that Court.

Clients describe Deanne as “wicked smart” (Chambers USA) and “one of the finest advocates in the Supreme Court bar” (Legal 500), remarking that “if she is on your team, great. If she’s on the other side, be ready.” Her 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 a streamlined approval path for biosimilars. Law360 named Deanne to its exclusive list of Appellate MVPs for this “big victory,” which it described as “a major decision that will speed up access to the lower-cost medicines,” and it dubbed her a “Legal Lion” three separate times for her work on appeals in this case.

Deanne also argues complex, high stakes cases in courts of appeals nationwide. She has a long record of winning appeals for sophisticated clients. 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), “exceptionally talented,” and “a tireless advocate with sterling client skills” (Legal 500).

Deanne has particular experience in the Federal and Ninth Circuits, where she has collectively argued more than 50 cases. In patent appeals in the Federal Circuit, she has successfully represented both patentees and defendants, including leading technology and life sciences companies. Clients note that “in the pharmaceuticals patent space she’s at the very top of the game” (Chambers USA). LMG Life Sciences recently recognized Deanne as the 2019 Appellate Litigator of the Year for multiple, significant wins. 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.

Before joining Morrison & Foerster, Deanne served as an Assistant to the Solicitor General at the U.S. Department of Justice for five years. She was previously a partner at another major law firm.

After law school, Deanne clerked twice on the United States Supreme Court. She clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer in his first year on the Court. During the previous term, she clerked for Justice Lewis Powell (Ret.) and Justice John Paul Stevens. Before that, Deanne clerked two years for Judge Stanley Harris of 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.

She is annually recommended as a leading lawyer by Chambers USA, Legal 500 US, and Best Lawyers in America. She is a Fellow in the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, selected for her distinction as an appellate lawyer.

Deanne serves on the Board of Trustees of the Supreme Court Historical Society. She also is a Master in, and Past President of, the Coke Appellate Inn of Court.

Supreme Court Arguments

• Sandoz v. Amgen (00:17)
  Involving the Supreme Court’s first foray into the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, which creates a streamlined approval path for biosimilars.
• RadLAX v. Amalgamated Bank (25:46)
  Whether a debtor can sell a secured asset free and clear without permitting the lienholder to credit-bid.
• Pacific Bell v. linkLine (18:38)
  Whether Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act permits a price squeeze claim in the absence of a duty to deal.
• MedImmune v. Genentech (17:38)
  Whether a patent licensee must breach a license agreement before seeking a declaration of patent invalidity.
• Ransom v. FIA Card Services (26:34)
  Involving when a debtor without lease payments may take a car-ownership deduction.
• EC Term of Years Trust v. United States
  Whether the federal tax code relegates a trust to a wrongful levy action as its exclusive remedy.
• Marshall v. Marshall
  Involving the scope of the probate exception to federal jurisdiction.
• United States v. Olson
  Involving the federal government’s sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act.
• Wilkinson v. Austin
  Whether the procedures governing placement of prisoners in supermax prison satisfied due process.
• Greenlaw v. United States
  Involving the power of the court of appeals in the absence of a cross-appeal.
• Dean v. United States
  Whether the accidental discharge of a firearm during a robbery results in a mandatory minimum prison term.
• Carcieri v. Salazar
  Involving the Secretary of the Interior’s authority to take land into trust for Indians.
• Boulware v. U.S.
  Whether a profitless corporation’s diversion of funds to a shareholder was nontaxable.
• Watson v. United States
  Whether trading drugs for a firearm was “using” a firearm “during and in relation” to a drug trafficking crime.

Representative Appellate Arguments

• Phigenix v. Genentech (11:21)
  (Fed. Cir.) Secured a noninfringement judgment for Genentech.
• Zabriskie v. Fannie Mae (0:00)
  (9th Cir.) Won reversal for Fannie Mae of a Fair Credit Reporting Act judgment.
• Washington University v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (0:42)
  (3d Cir.) Obtained reversal for Washington University in a suit for royalties due under a contract with WARF.
• National Business Aviation Assoc. v. Huerta (28:34)
  (D.C. Cir.) Successfully defended the City of Santa Monica against a challenge to its settlement with the FAA about its municipal airport.
• Flores v. UPS and Pocino Foods v. UPS (13:43)
  (9th Cir.) Secured judgment for UPS on two putative RICO and breach-of-contract class actions about its branded Next Day Air services.
• Residential Capital v. Federal Housing Finance Agency
  (2d Cir.) Successfully obtained a remand in a case stemming from the ResCap bankruptcy.
• BASF v. Johnson Matthey (0:17)
  (Fed. Cir.) Won reversal of an invalidity ruling against patentee BASF, reviving its patent claims.
• Holl v. U.S. District Court (13:32)
  (9th Cir.) Defeated a mandamus petition against UPS, successfully defending its arbitration provision.
• Interactive Digital Software Association v. St. Louis County, Missouri
  (8th Cir.) Successfully argued a First Amendment challenge to an ordinance regulating video games.
• In Re: Tremont Securities Law
  (2d Cir.) Secured dismissal for a major accounting firm of a putative class action about a Madoff-related fund.
• Estate of Graham v. Sotheby’s (30:46)
  (9th Cir.) (en banc) Won invalidation under the Commerce Clause of parts of a California artist resale royalty law.
• In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation (17:20)
  (9th Cir.) Prevailed in a putative nationwide antitrust class action against one of the largest U.S. ATM networks.
• Augme Technologies v. Yahoo! (21:49)
  (Fed. Cir.) Secured a noninfringement judgment for Yahoo! in a suit involving Internet display advertising.
• Lower Elwha Klallam Indian Tribe v. Lummi Nation (00:03)
  (9th Cir.) Won a reversal for the Lummi Nation, reclaiming its historic treaty rights.
• Warsaw Orthopedic v. NuVasive (17:44)
  (Fed. Cir.) Obtained vacatur of a jury’s $101 million patent damages award.
• Momenta v. Amphastar (02:55)
  (Fed. Cir.) Successfully argued for a patentee that conduct was unprotected by the Hatch-Waxman Act safe harbor.
• Neurovision Medical Products v. NuVasive (00:00)
  (9th Cir.) Obtained vacatur of a jury’s $60 million trademark verdict.