Wes Overson has a trial-oriented practice that focuses on intellectual property and other commercial litigation involving complex issues. His clients span many technological fields, and include suppliers of robotic surgical devices, pharmaceutical and biotechnology organizations, and global positioning system manufacturers, for which he has crafted winning strategies for both the courtroom and arbitration proceedings.
Mr. Overson was the head of the Litigation Department in Morrison & Foerster’s San Francisco office for over seven years, a member of the Executive Committee of the Litigation Section of the Bar Association of San Francisco, and the chair of the bar’s Civility Committee. He sits on the Advisory Board of the Practical Law Company.
Among his notable representations, Mr. Overson and a MoFo team achieved a complete defense victory for Bayer in the Therasense case. Bayer won at trial on invalidity and inequitable conduct. This “rare instance” of winning an inequitable conduct defense resulted in the case being listed in the San Francisco Daily Journal’s Top Defense Wins of 2008. The Federal Circuit affirmed the invalidity ruling, but then remanded the inequitable conduct case after establishing new higher standards of proof. On remand in 2012, Bayer won again in the district court under the higher standard for inequitable conduct.
In Enriquez v. Fresno, in December 2012, Mr. Overson and a MoFo team obtained a jury verdict on behalf of the family of a man shot and killed by the police. The family later received a seven-figure settlement. For his work on the case, Mr. Overson received a 2013 California Lawyer Attorneys of the Year (CLAY) Award.
Mr. Overson obtained his B.A. from Reed College and his J.D., cum laude, from University of California, Hastings College of Law.
Black v. Reliant Technologies(Santa Clara Superior Court). Successfully defended a medical laser company facing patent-related allegations in a three-month jury trial in Silicon Valley.
CPR ArbitrationRepresented a biotech company in an arbitration asserting its patent on a diagnostic test for HIV. The case settled after closing arguments, with our client receiving payments of more than $100 million.
JAMS ArbitrationWon an arbitration involving breach of contract and fraud claims arising out of the purchase of a technology company. Our client was sued for failing to pay the full purchase price for a company. We counterclaimed that the intellectual property rights of the company had been misrepresented prior to the sale. After an eight-day arbitration, the arbitrator denied the opposing parties’ claims and granted all of our clients’ claims, including a grant of attorneys’ fees, resulting in a substantial judgment for our client.
AAA ArbitrationDefended a trade secret and licensing claim in which the claimant was seeking more than $30 million. Our client counterclaimed and ultimately obtained a net damages award in its favor, along with significant injunctive relief. The successful counterclaim strategy led to a settlement netting our client more than $50 million.
ArbitrationScored a complete victory for a multinational pharmaceutical corporation accused of infringing several of its competitor’s patents. In addition to the direct product competition at the heart of the dispute, the potential damages were well into the nine-figure range. After a two-week hearing, our client prevailed on every patent.
Alvarez v. Fountainhead, Inc.(Northern District of California). Obtained the first preliminary injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act ordering a preschool to train its staff to accommodate a boy with asthma.
Abbott Labs, et al. v. Roche, Bayer.(Northern District of California). In August 2005, plaintiff Abbott Labs filed suit in the Northern District of California against Bayer and Roche, two of the leading manufacturers of blood glucose meters and strips, asserting infringement of two of Abbott’s patents. After a six-day bench trial in June 2008, in a 54-page opinion, the court found in Bayer’s favor on all claims. The court invalidated every asserted claim as obvious, and also found the patent unenforceable. In January 2010, the Federal Circuit affirmed that judgment in all respects, but later issued an en banc decision on the standard for finding inequitable conduct. On remand in 2012, the district court found inequitable conduct again under the new standard.
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.