Morrison Foerster is an international law firm with lawyers practicing throughout the United States, Asia, and Europe. Click to discover more.

mofo_share_image.jpg

Morrison Foerster

common-default.jpeg

Terms / Notices

Cookies

Privacy Policy

Reporting Hotline

Attorney Advertising

Alumni

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

  Facebook

MoFo Facebook

YouTube

MoFo Youtube

Morrison Foerster - Footer

CLE International's 2024 IP CLE

You have not solved the recaptcha challenge yet or session expired, try again.

Email Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a>, 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.

Feedback

mofo-logo-2022.svg

People

Capabilities

Resources

About

Community

Offices

Careers

Stay Connected

Morrison Foerster is proud to sponsor CLE International’s 2024 IP Conference, which will take place from January 7-10, 2024, in Snowmass, CO.

<h3>Sorry, we weren’t able to find the terms you entered.</h3>Please try a different term or keyword.

People

Capabilities

Resources

Not Found Cards

Morrison Foerster is proud to sponsor <a href="https://web.cvent.com/event/4fb1bc7d-5f60-41b0-ade5-36302dfa7443/websitePage:22a55169-c4d7-4d7c-820f-06fe5dd5da52" target="_blank" dir="ltr">CLE International’s 2024 IP Conference</a>, which will take place from January 7-10, 2024, in Snowmass, CO.Deanne Maynard, co-chair of Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice, will moderate “A Dialogue Between Bench and Bar,” featuring judges from the Federal Circuit and the Delaware District Court, on January 10th at 5:30 pm MST. <hr>

Sign Up

Deanne Maynard, a partner in Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice, is widely recognized as one of the nation’s leading appellate advocates. She has argued 14 cases before the United States Supreme Court and 75 times in appellate courts across the country.In ranking Deanne in Band 1, Chambers USA reports that she is described as a “magnificent and top-notch lawyer” who is “wicked smart.” She is “extremely thoughtful, even-keeled and has a wonderful presence in the courtroom.” Legal 500 calls Deanne “one of the finest advocates in the Supreme Court bar,” remarking that “if she is on your team, great. If she’s on the other side, be ready.”Deanne’s winning 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 an approval path for biosimilars. Law360 named Deanne to its exclusive list of <a href="http://media2.mofo.com/documents/171212-mvp-deanne-maynard.pdf" target="_blank">Appellate MVPs</a> for this “big victory,” dubbing her a “Legal Lion” three separate times for her work on appeals in this case. LMG Life Sciences also named Deanne <a href="/resources/news/190920-deanne-maynard-appellate-litigator-of-the-year" target="_self">Appellate Litigator of the Year</a>.Deanne argues complex, high stakes cases in courts of appeals nationwide. 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), and “a tireless advocate with sterling client skills” (Legal 500).Deanne has particular experience in the Federal and Ninth Circuits. She has argued more than 40 appeals in the Federal Circuit, including wins for both patentees and defendants on a wide range of technologies. Chambers USA ranked Deanne in Band 1 for Intellectual Property Appeals, describing her as “renowned for her track record in bet-the-company disputes.” She also serves as Chair of the Federal Circuit’s Advisory Council, which is a conduit between the Court and the public. 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.Deanne is annually recommended as a leading lawyer by Chambers USA, Chambers Global, Legal 500 US, and Best Lawyers in America. She is President of the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers, an invitation-only organization recognizing distinguished appellate lawyers. Deanne is also a Master in, and Past President of, the Coke Appellate Inn of Court.Deanne is a leader within Morrison Foerster as well, chairing its partner compensation committee and serving on the firm’s leadership team.Before joining the firm, Deanne 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, Deanne clerked two Terms on the United States Supreme Court, one for Justice Stephen Breyer and another for Justice Lewis Powell (Ret.) and Justice John Paul Stevens. Before that, Deanne clerked two years for Judge Stanley Harris on 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.<h4>Supreme Court Arguments</h4><ul><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/170426-sandoz-v-amgen" target="_self">Sandoz v. Amgen</a> (00:17): Involving the Supreme Court’s first foray into the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/120423-radlax-v-amalgamated-bank" target="_self">RadLAX v. Amalgamated Bank</a> (25:46): Whether a debtor can sell a secured asset free and clear without permitting the lienholder to credit-bid</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/081208-pacific-bell-v-linkline" target="_self">Pacific Bell v. linkLine</a> (18:38): Whether Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act permits a price squeeze claim in the absence of a duty to deal</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/061004-medimmune-v-genentech" target="_self">MedImmune v. Genentech</a> (17:38): Whether a patent licensee must breach a license agreement before seeking a declaration of patent invalidity</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/101004-ransom-v-fia-card-services" target="_self">Ransom v. FIA Card Services</a> (26:34): Involving when a debtor without lease payments may take a car-ownership deduction</li><li>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</li><li>Marshall v. Marshall: Involving the scope of the probate exception to federal jurisdiction</li><li>U.S. v. Olson: Involving the federal government’s sovereign immunity under the Federal Tort Claims Act</li><li>Wilkinson v. Austin: Whether the procedures governing placement of prisoners in supermax prison satisfied due process</li><li>Greenlaw v. U.S.: Involving the power of the court of appeals in the absence of a cross-appeal</li><li>Dean v. U.S.: Whether the accidental discharge of a firearm during a robbery results in a mandatory minimum prison term</li><li>Carcieri v. Salazar: Involving the Secretary of the Interior’s authority to take land into trust for Indians</li><li>Boulware v. U.S.: Whether a profitless corporation’s diversion of funds to a shareholder was nontaxable</li><li>Watson v. U.S.: Whether trading drugs for a firearm was “using” a firearm “during and in relation” to a drug trafficking crime</li></ul><h4>Representative Appellate Arguments</h4><ul><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/210903-in-re-cirba" target="_self">In re Cirba</a> (25:53) (Fed. Cir.): Successfully defeated attempt to revive a jury’s patent infringement verdict against VMware</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/170426-phigenix-v-genentech" target="_self">Phigenix v. Genentech </a>(11:21) (Fed. Cir.): Secured noninfringement judgment for Genentech</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/181018-zabriskie-v-fannie-mae" target="_self">Zabriskie v. Fannie Mae</a> <a href="http://youtu.be/Cz_Hp0VIkYs">(Video)</a> (0:00) (9th Cir.): Won reversal for Fannie Mae of a Fair Credit Reporting Act judgment</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/161108-washington-university-v-wisconsin-alumni" target="_self">Washington University v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation</a> (0:42) (3d Cir.): Obtained reversal for Washington University in suit for royalties due under contract with WARF</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/191202-nevro-v-boston-scientific" target="_self">Nevro v. Boston Scientific</a> (00:10) (Fed. Cir.): Won reversal of district court judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/180514-aviation-v-huerta" target="_self">National Business Aviation Assoc. v. Huerta</a> (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</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/200601-cr-bard-v-angiodynamics" target="_self">C.R. Bard v. Angiodynamics</a> (00:29) (Fed. Cir.): Won reversal of district court judgment of noninfringement, no willfulness, and invalidity, reviving client’s infringement case on three patents</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/190409-flores-v-ups" target="_self">Flores v. UPS & Pocino Foods v. UPS (Consolidated)</a> (<a href="http://youtu.be/eas0RAExOME" target="_blank">Video</a>) (13:43) (9th Cir.): Secured judgment for UPS on two putative RICO and breach-of-contract class actions about its Next Day Air services</li><li>Residential Capital v. Federal Housing Finance Agency (2d Cir.): Successfully obtained a remand in a case stemming from the ResCap bankruptcy</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/171005-basf-argument" target="_self">BASF v. Johnson Matthey</a> (0:17) (Fed. Cir.): Won reversal of an invalidity ruling against patentee BASF, reviving its patent claims</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/190419-holl-v-us-district-court" target="_self">Holl v. U.S. District Court</a> (<a href="https://youtu.be/ilT3hbMCTQ0" target="_blank">Video</a>) (13:32) (9th Cir.): Defeated a mandamus petition against UPS, successfully defending its arbitration provision containing a class-action waiver</li><li>Interactive Digital Software Association v. St. Louis County, Missouri (8th Cir.): Successfully argued a First Amendment challenge to an ordinance regulating video games</li><li>In Re: Tremont Securities Law (2d Cir.): Secured dismissal for a major accounting firm of a putative class action regarding a Madoff-related fund</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/141216-estate-of-graham-v-sothebys" target="_self">Estate of Graham v. Sotheby’s</a> (30:46) (9th Cir.) (en banc): Won invalidation under the Commerce Clause of parts of a California artist resale royalty law</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/111206-atm-fee-antitrust-litigation" target="_self">In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation</a> (17:20) (9th Cir.): Prevailed in a putative nationwide antitrust class action against one of the largest U.S. ATM networks</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/131205-augme-technologies-v-yahoo" target="_self">Augme Technologies v. Yahoo!</a> (21:49) (Fed. Cir.): Secured a noninfringement judgment for Yahoo! in a suit involving Internet display advertising</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/170830-lummi-nation-argument" target="_self">Lower Elwha Klallam Indian Tribe v. Lummi Nation</a> (<a href="http://youtu.be/OILs47RhSjM" target="_blank">Video</a>) (00:03) (9th Cir.): Won a reversal for the Lummi Nation, reclaiming its historic treaty rights</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/141201-warsaw-orthopedic-v-nuvasive" target="_self">Warsaw Orthopedic v. NuVasive</a> (17:44) (Fed. Cir.): Obtained vacatur of a jury’s $101 million patent damages award</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/150504-momenta-v-amphastar" target="_self">Momenta v. Amphastar</a> (02:55) (Fed. Cir.): Successfully argued for a patentee that conduct was unprotected by the Hatch-Waxman Act safe harbor</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/120605-neurovision-medical-products-v-nuvasive" target="_self">Neurovision Medical Products v. NuVasive</a> (00:00) (9th Cir.): Obtained vacatur of a jury’s $60 million trademark verdict</li></ul>

Deanne E. Maynard

Partner

Appellate + Supreme Court

IP Due Diligence

CLE International's 2024 IP CLE

07 Jan 2024 - 10 Jan 2024