“ My goal for every client: identify legal solutions that can drive effective business outcomes tied to a client’s long-term strategic goals.
Erik’s practice focuses on the litigation of intellectual property, securities, and corporate governance disputes, with particular emphasis on clients in the biotechnology, medical device, telecommunications, and high-technology industries.
Erik regularly assists life sciences, high-technology, and telecommunications companies in the prosecution or defense of intellectual property lawsuits with competitors regarding:
Erik has played a critical role in cases that have made front-page news, defining strategies to address complex and high-profile disputes regarding injunctive relief and damages for consumer electronic devices and pharmaceutical patents. As a key member of MoFo’s Life Sciences Group, he coordinates our practice involving claims based on the introduction of biosimilars under the Affordable Care Act’s Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). Erik currently serves as a member of the Sedona Conference working group on patent litigation involving biopharmaceutical products.
Erik also regularly represents executives, directors, and companies in suits arising from actual or potential mergers, acquisitions, and other strategic transactions. He has repeatedly obtained dismissals of federal class action lawsuits under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and successfully defended those dismissals before the Fourth, Ninth, and Tenth Circuits. Erik has repeatedly represented clients in high-profile trials addressing claims of breach of fiduciary duties, appraisal claims, and disputes over injunctive relief in Delaware, New York, Ohio, and California.
Erik currently serves as a member of Morrison & Foerster’s board of directors and serves as treasurer for the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, the largest pro bono service provider in Santa Clara County (San Jose, California).
Show MoreCo-led a team that successfully tried a series of high profile smartphone cases, including a jury verdict of over $1 billion.
(U.S. District Court for N.D. Cal., Federal Circuit). Secured a victory on behalf of Sandoz Inc. in the first case to interpret the Affordable Care Act’s Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). The federal district court ruled in Sandoz’s favor on all issues before the court, adopting Sandoz’s interpretation of the BPCIA in all respects. The court also denied Amgen’s motions urging a contrary interpretation and seeking a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit later affirmed the key elements of Sandoz victory. Mr. Olson current represents Sandoz in disputes regarding patents directed toward the purification of proteins expressed using recombinant DNA technology.
(Kansas District Court; U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas). Represented SoftBank Corporation in litigation that sought to prevent its acquisition of a controlling interest in Sprint Nextel Corporation. Plaintiffs ultimately withdrew their request for a preliminary injunction after oral argument and then voluntarily dismissed their claims after the transaction closed. (2012-2013).
(Delaware Court of Chancery). Representing SoftBank Corporation in breach of fiduciary duty and appraisal litigation associated with Sprint’s cash merger with Clearwire Corporation. Served as lead counsel at a trial of the fiduciary duty and appraisal claims in the fall of 2016. The case is currently one of the largest appraisal actions ongoing in the Court of Chancery.
(D. Colo.). Represented Crocs, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors in shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in Colorado. In February 2009, won dismissal of all derivative claims, with prejudice, on first motion to dismiss. No appeal was filed.
(D. Colo.). Represented Crocs, Inc. and its current and former officers and directors in shareholder class actions (claiming violations of the Exchange Act). Won dismissal of all claims with prejudice pursuant to the Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 on a first motion to dismiss.
(Del. Court of Chancery & Los Angeles County Superior Court). Represented Cogent Inc. and its directors in a lawsuit challenging its merger with the 3M Company. Successfully defeated a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the transaction based on alleged breach of fiduciary duties.
(Nevada State Court). On behalf of Pinnacle Entertainment, the buyer of Ameristar Casinos, defeated motions seeking a preliminary injunction against the closing of the merger and obtained a dismissal of plaintiffs claim.
(D. Nev.). Represented Global Cash Access and its executives in securities litigation brought against a payment processor who specialized in the gaming industry. Successfully dismissed certain initial claims and then obtained a favorable settlement, which was fully covered by insurance.
(Marin County Superior Court). Reached a favorable settlement on behalf of Restoration Hardware in connection with shareholder litigation stemming from a going-private transaction.
(N.D. Cal.). On behalf of Titan Pharmaceuticals, obtained voluntary dismissal of pending class action securities claims against Titan without need to file a motion to dismiss.
(S.D.N.Y.). On behalf of Telik Inc., successfully settled a class action litigation challenging the disclosure of Phase III clinical trial results based on payments by insurers without the need for costly or burdensome discovery.
(Del. Court of Chancery). Representing Global Defense Technology & Systems Inc. and its directors in litigation challenging its proposed merger with a private equity buyer. (2011)
(U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware). Represented Abraxis in its high profile patent dispute and trial with Elan regarding technology used in the delivery of chemotherapy agents.
Successfully persuaded the SEC to conclude, without penalties, investigations into alleged federal securities law violations at a software company, a home goods retailer, and a medical device manufacturer. (2005-2011)
Represented multiple U.S. public companies with far-reaching internal investigations regarding the company’s employee stock-option program. (2006-2007)
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.
