Deanne E. Maynard

Deanne E. Maynard


Washington D.C., (202) 887-8740


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)

Deanne E. Maynard, co-chair of the Appellate and Supreme Court Practice Group, is a partner in the Washington, D.C. office, and a former Assistant to the Solicitor General at the United States Department of Justice.

Ms. Maynard has argued and briefed significant cases in the Supreme Court of the United States and the federal courts of appeals. Clients have described her as “an exceptionally skilled lawyer and incredibly hardworking” and “one of the finest advocates in the Supreme Court bar” (Legal 500 2014). Others have described Ms. Maynard as “incredibly established … always polite and civilized but a zealous advocate for her clients. A great person and a great lawyer” (Legal 500 2014).

Ms. Maynard has argued 14 cases before the Supreme Court of the United States, and she has filed over 100 briefs in that Court. Her Supreme Court arguments include prevailing for the respondent in RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank, an important bankruptcy case involving the rights of secured creditors. She also argued and prevailed in Ransom v. FIA Card Services, a case involving the interpretation of the federal bankruptcy statute.

Ms. Maynard also has substantial knowledge and understanding of cutting-edge antitrust and intellectual property issues. Her Supreme Court arguments include the patent case MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. and the antitrust case Pacific Bell Telephone Company v. linkLine Communications, Inc. She also was a principal author of the briefs for the United States in Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly and Quanta Computer, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc., and briefs at the certiorari stage in Bilski v. Doll and American Needle, Inc. v. National Football League.

Ms. Maynard has an active practice in the federal courts of appeals. She has argued and briefed significant appeals on a wide-range of business law issues, including antitrust, securities, class action, and intellectual property.  She recently argued and won a decision from the en banc Ninth Circuit in Estate of Graham, et al. v. Sotheby’s, Inc., which held portions of a California copyright royalty statute unconstitutional.  In addition to her many arguments in the regional federal courts of appeals, she also has argued more than 25 appeals in the Federal Circuit.

Ms. Maynard served in the Solicitor General’s office from 2004-2009. Before joining the Solicitor General’s office, Ms. Maynard was a partner at Jenner & Block in Washington, D.C. Her practice at Jenner involved a wide variety of complex litigation matters at all levels of the federal judiciary, ranging from a multi-billion dollar government contracts case to media and First Amendment litigation.

After law school, Ms. Maynard clerked twice on the Supreme Court of the United States. During the October 1994 Term, she clerked for Justice Stephen Breyer in his first year on the Court. During the 1993 Term, she clerked for retired Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell and affiliated with Justice John Paul Stevens. From 1991-1993, Ms. Maynard clerked for Judge Stanley Harris of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.

Ms. Maynard graduated magna cum laude in 1991 from Harvard Law School, where she was an editor of the Harvard Law Review. She earned a B.A., with distinction, in English from the University of Virginia, where she was also Phi Beta Kappa and Omicron Delta Kappa.

Ms. Maynard is a Master in, and Past President of, the Coke Appellate Inn of Court. Ms. Maynard was elected as a Fellow in the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers in 2012 for her recognized distinction as an appellate lawyer.

Ms. Maynard is annually recommended as a leading lawyer by Chambers USA, Legal 500 US, and Best Lawyers in America.

Ransom v. FIA Card Services, N.A.
(U.S.). Argument and brief in the Supreme Court of the United States for respondent regarding the interpretation of the means test provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. Prevailed 8-1 in decision.
RadLAX Gateway Hotel, LLC v. Amalgamated Bank
(U.S.). Argument and brief in the Supreme Court of the United States in an important bankruptcy case involving the rights of secured creditors. Prevailed 8-0 in decision.
Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. et al. v. Sandoz, Inc. et al.
(Fed. Cir.). Argument and briefs for Sandoz and Momenta Pharmaceuticals in ANDA case regarding Teva’s $4 billion multiple sclerosis drug, Copaxone. Obtained reversal of district court’s judgment on five patents, which the Circuit held invalid as indefinite. After U.S. Supreme Court review, the Federal Circuit applied the Supreme Court’s new standard of appellate review for claim-construction rulings and reaffirmed its holding that Teva’s sole remaining patent claim is invalid as indefinite, clearing the way for MoFo clients Sandoz and Momenta Pharmaceuticals to launch a generic version of Copaxone,
Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc., et al. v. NuVasive, Inc.
(Fed. Cir.). Argument for vacatur of a jury’s $101 million patent verdict against our client, NuVasive, and a remand for a new trial on damages. MoFo became involved in the case on appeal, after a district court jury found that NuVasive infringed Warsaw’s patents related to implants and devices used in spinal surgeries. The jury awarded damages of $101 million and an ongoing royalty rate. The Federal Circuit vacated the $101 million damages award, ruling Medtronic could not recover damages for lost profits and remanded for a damages trial limited only to a reasonable royalty.
Estate of Graham, et al. v. Sotheby’s, Inc.
(9th Cir. 2015) (en banc). Argument and brief for client Sotheby’s before an 11-judge en banc Ninth Circuit panel, securing the invalidation of parts of a California artist royalty law that requires art owners or their agents to pay a 5 percent royalty to artists when their works are resold. Ms. Maynard also presented oral argument on behalf of Christie’s and eBay in the appeal. A majority of the en banc Ninth Circuit ruled that the California Resale Royalties Act (CRRA) violates the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution by regulating sales of fine art occurring wholly outside California.
Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sandoz Inc. v. Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc.; Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sandoz Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., 14-1274, 14-1276
(Fed. Cir.). Argument and briefs on behalf of Sandoz and Momenta in these two appeals concerning the scope of the safe-harbor provision of the Hatch-Waxman Act, which are being closely watched by the pharmaceutical industry. Ms. Maynard began handling the appeals after an earlier adverse Federal Circuit decision led to the lifting of a preliminary injunction against Amphastar. The Federal Circuit ruled in favor of our clients on the safe harbor issue.
Augme Technologies LLC v. Yahoo!, Inc.,
(Fed. Cir.). Argument and briefs for Yahoo! in a suit involving Internet display advertising and media playback. Won complete affirmance of the district court’s summary judgment non-infringement ruling in addition to affirmance on Yahoo!’s counterclaims.
Neurovision Medical Products v. NuVasive, Inc.
(9th Cir. 2012). Argument and briefs for NuVasive Inc. in action involving claim of trademark infringement. Obtained a complete reversal and vacatur of jury’s $60 million verdict and a remand for a new trial before a different district court judge.
Ruiz v. Gap Inc.
(9th Cir. 2010). Argument and brief for Gap in a putative class action lawsuit involving privacy and identity theft. Obtained affirmance of dismissal of claims by a job applicant who alleged he was harmed when a laptop containing personal data was stolen from a third-party vendor, but who suffered no actual identity theft or other misuse of his data.
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.
(U.S. 2007). Argument and brief for the United States regarding whether, under the jurisdictional provisions of the Declaratory Judgment Act, a patent licensee seeking a declaratory judgment that the patent is invalid, unenforceable, or not infringed must first terminate or be in breach of its license agreement.
Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. linkLine Communications, Inc.
(S. Ct. 2009). Argument and brief for the United States regarding whether a “price squeeze” claim may be brought under Section 2 of the Sherman Act when the defendant has no antitrust duties toward the plaintiff.

Deanne Maynard is recommended as a leading lawyer by Best Lawyers in America 2011–2016, Chambers USA 2016, and Legal 500 US 2015, and was cited by Benchmark Litigation as one of the Top 250 Women in Litigation.

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.

©1996-2017 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved.