Deanne E. Maynard

Deanne E. Maynard


University of Virginia (B.A., 1987)
Harvard Law School (J.D., 1991)

Bar Admissions

District of Columbia


Hon. Stanley S. Harris, U.S. District Court, District of Columbia (1991-1993)
Justice Lewis F. Powell, Jr., U.S. Supreme Court (1993-1994)
Justice Stephen G. Breyer, U.S. Supreme Court (1994-1995)

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 Ms. Maynard 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), bankruptcy (RadLAX v. Amalgamated Bank), financial services (Ransom v. FIA Card Services), and antitrust (Pacific Bell v. linkLine) . In Sandoz v. Amgen, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously for her client Sandoz in a closely watched case involving the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act, which provides a streamlined approval path for biosimilars. Law360 named Ms. Maynard 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.

Ms. Maynard also argues complex, high stakes cases in the federal courts of appeals. In Estate of Graham v. Sotheby’s, she successfully argued to the en banc Ninth Circuit that a California copyright royalty statute was unconstitutional as applied outside the State. Her victories include notable reversals, including convincing the Federal Circuit to vacate a $101 million jury verdict and the Ninth Circuit to set aside a $60 million jury verdict.

Ms. Maynard’s appellate practice is nationwide. She has particular experience in the Federal Circuit, where she has argued more than 35 appeals, representing both patentees and defendants, on a variety of technologies. Clients note that “in the pharmaceuticals patent space she’s at the very top of the game” (Chambers USA). Ms. Maynard also appears regularly in the Ninth Circuit, where she has argued more than 15 appeals. Clients praise her as "an incredible oral advocate, very prepared and formidable" (Chambers USA), “exceptionally talented” and as “a tireless advocate with sterling client skills (Legal 500).

Before joining Morrison & Foerster, Ms. Maynard 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, Ms. Maynard clerked twice on the Supreme Court. She clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer in his first year. During the previous Term, she clerked for Justice Lewis Powell (Ret.) and Justice John Paul Stevens. Before that, Ms. Maynard clerked two years for Judge Stanley Harris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Ms. Maynard 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.

Ms. Maynard 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.

Ms. Maynard 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
    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
    Whether a debtor can sell a secured asset free and clear without permitting the lienholder to credit-bid.
  • Pacific Bell v. linkLine
    Whether Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act permits a prize squeeze claim in the absence of a duty to deal.
  • MedImmune v. Genentech
    Whether a patent licensee must breach a license agreement before seeking a declaration of patent invalidity.
  • Ransom v. FIA Card Services
    Involving when a debtor without lease payments may take a car-ownership deduction.
  • 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.
  • Marshall v. Marshall
    Involving the scope of the probate exception to federal jurisdiction.
  • U.S. 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. U.S.
    Involving the power of the court of appeals in the absence of a cross-appeal.
  • Dean v. U.S
    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. U.S.
    Whether trading drugs for a firearm was “using” a firearm “during and in relation” to a drug trafficking crime.

Representative Appellate Arguments

  • BASF v. Johnson Matthey
    (Fed. Cir.). Won reversal of an invalidity ruling, reviving our client BASF’s patent claims.
  • Washington University v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation
    (3d Cir.). Obtained reversal for Washington University in suit for royalties due under contract with WARF.
  • Lower Elwha Klallam Indian Tribe v. Lummi Nation
    (9th Cir.). Won reversal for the Lummi Nation, reclaiming its historic treaty rights.
  • AFMS v. United Parcel Service and FedEx
    (9th Cir.). Prevailed in significant antitrust case, defeating claims against our client UPS.
  • Teva v. Sandoz
    (Fed. Cir.). Both before and after Supreme Court review, obtained ruling of patent invalidity for indefiniteness.
  • In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation
    (9th Cir.). Prevailed in putative nationwide antitrust class action against one of the largest ATM networks in the U.S.
  • Warsaw Orthopedic v. NuVasive
    (Fed. Cir.). Obtained vacatur of a jury’s $101 million patent damages award.
  • Estate of Graham v. Sotheby’s
    (9th Cir.) (en banc). Secured invalidation of parts of a California artist royalty law as violative of the Commerce Clause.
  • Momenta v. Amphastar
    (Fed. Cir.). Successfully argued for patentee that certain conduct was not protected by the Hatch-Waxman safe harbor.
  • In Re: Tremont Securities Law
    (2d Cir.). Secured dismissal for major accounting firm of putative class action regarding a Madoff-related fund.
  • Augme Technologies v. Yahoo!
    (Fed. Cir.). Secured non-infringement judgment for Yahoo! in suit involving Internet display advertising.
  • Interactive Digital Software Association v. St. Louis County, Missouri
    (8th Cir.). Successfully argued that local ordinance regulating video games violated the First Amendment.
  • Neurovision Medical Products v. NuVasive
    (9th Cir.). Obtained vacatur of jury’s $60 million trademark verdict.
  • Ruiz v. Gap
    (9th Cir.). Secured dismissal of claims in putative class action lawsuit involving privacy and identity theft.
  • Residential Capital v. Federal Housing Finance Agency
    (2d Cir.). Successfully obtained remand in case stemming from ResCap bankruptcy.

Named one of Law360's 2017 Appellate MVPs

Ranked in Chambers USA 2017 - Leading Individual

Ranked in Legal 500 US 2017 - Leading Individual

Email 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.

©1996-2019 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved.