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

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (October 19–23): Still More Axes to Grind in American Axle

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

Culture

Offices

Careers

Stay Connected

We are Morrison Foerster — a global firm of exceptional credentials. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, investment banks, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Our lawyers are committed to achieving innovative and business-minded results for our clients, while preserving the differences that make us stronger.Because of the generality of this update, the information provided herein may not be applicable in all situations and should not be acted upon without specific legal advice based on particular situations. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.

About Morrison Foerster

people-default-header-desktop.jpg

people-default-header-mobile.jpg

Default Meta Data

Last Week in the Federal Circuit (October 19–23): Still More Axes to Grind in American Axle

Sign Up

Brian Matsui co-chairs Morrison Foerster’s Appellate and Supreme Court practice. Brian is a go-to appellate advocate for sophisticated clients in complex appeals. Brian has a nationwide appellate practice. He has argued many cases in federal and state appellate courts throughout the country, winning appeals involving federal preemption, securities litigation and enforcement, consumer class actions, and intellectual property. He has led appeals in the D.C., Second, Fourth, Fifth, Ninth, Eleventh, and Federal Circuits. His arguments include significant victories in class action appeals and in appeals for leading financial services companies, with multiple victories in the Ninth Circuit, where he clerked. Brian recently has gone five for six when representing appellants, including a precedential victory in the Ninth Circuit in a licensing dispute concerning alleged patent misuse. He also argued and won a D.C. Circuit appeal against the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) about the retroactivity of part of the Dodd-Frank Act. As a result of Brian’s win, the SEC had to change its enforcement practices against certain securities industry professionals.Clients frequently turn to Brian for his substantial experience with appeals in the Federal Circuit, praising him as “an invaluable advocate in patent matters” (Chambers USA). Brian has won 13 of his last 15 appeals in that Court. His arguments before the Federal Circuit include winning appeals from district courts, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the International Trade Commission. He has handled appeals in a myriad of industries, including mobile devices, pharmaceuticals, medical devices, semiconductors, and software.Brian also plays a key role on trial teams, advising clients on both critical legal issues and appellate preservation. He recently argued and prevailed against a summary judgment invalidity motion in a case involving Chugai Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd.’s revolutionary antibody recycling technology, which ultimately led to a $775 million settlement on the eve of trial for Chugai.A former law clerk for the United States Supreme Court, Brian has authored many briefs in that Court, including on important constitutional and statutory interpretation issues. He often represents clients’ interests in amicus briefs in significant Supreme Court cases affecting the business community.Leading publications have recognized Brian for his appellate skills. The Legal 500 US recommends him for appellate litigation, and the National Law Journal named Brian a “Minority 40 Under 40.”Brian also dedicates significant time to pro bono matters. He argued and won two significant appeals—in the Second and Ninth Circuits—obtaining reversals of judgments that had denied private rights of action under the Child Welfare Act in precedential decisions. Brian also led the Morrison Foerster team who co-counseled a successful Eighth Amendment challenge to Florida’s imposition of a “life without the possibility of parole” sentence to a juvenile offender convicted of a non-homicide crime.For years, Brian chaired the ABA’s seven-person Standing Committee for Amicus Curiae Briefs. He served on the American Intellectual Property Law Association’s amicus committee and co-chaired the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association’s amicus committee. Brian served as an appellate lawyer representative for the Ninth Circuit. Brian also serves on the board of directors for the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights Under Law.Before entering private practice, Brian clerked on the United States Supreme Court for Justice Anthony M. Kennedy. He also clerked for Judge Pamela Ann Rymer in the Ninth Circuit and Judge David F. Levi in the Eastern District of California.While in law school, Brian served as managing editor of Volume 51 of the Stanford Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif.<h4>Representative Oral Arguments</h4><ul><li><a href="https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=22-1260_02102023.mp3" target="_blank">SNIPR Technologies Ltd. v. Rockefeller University </a>(Fed. Cir.) Prevailed in a precedential decision reversing the Patent Office’s interpretation of the America Invents Act (AIA) that subjected patents post-dating the Act to pre-AIA interference proceedings. The decision revived five of SNIPR’s patents related to CRISPR technology.</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/220114-broadcom-corporation-v-renesas-matsui" target="_blank">Renesas Electronics Corporation v. Broadcom Corporation</a> (12:40) (Fed. Cir.) Successfully argued and briefed multiple appeals from an International Trade Commission (ITC) decision and several Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions related to an ITC investigation initiated by Broadcom involving systems-on-chip powering automobile infotainment systems.</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/210706-cr-bard-v-medline-industries" target="_self">C.R. Bard Inc. v. Medline Industries, Inc.</a> (0:45) (Fed. Cir.) Won vacatur of three Patent Trial and Appeal Board decisions on obviousness.</li><li><a href="https://oralarguments.cafc.uscourts.gov/default.aspx?fl=21-1745_03102022.mp3" target="_blank">Advanced Voice Recognition Systems, Inc. v. Apple Inc.</a> (14:30) (Fed. Cir.) Secured a complete victory in appeal from Patent Trial and Appeal Board that all challenged patent claims were unpatentable.</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/200515-william-paulus-v-ocera-therapeutics-inc.html" target="_self">William Paulus v. Ocera Therapeutics, Inc.</a> (13:25) (9th Cir.) Successfully argued and briefed appeal in a putative shareholder class action involving a tender offer.</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/200410-kurtz-v-costco.html" target="_blank">Kurtz v. Costco Wholesale Corporation </a>(9:23) (2d Cir.) Successfully petitioned for review of a class certification decision, then argued and obtained a remand for the district court to reconsider its certification decision and an eventual reversal on an injunctive class certification decision.</li><li><a href="/resources/video-audio/161117-gregory-bartko-v-sec.html" target="_self">Gregory Bartko v. SEC</a> (0:53) (D.C. Cir.) Successfully argued and obtained precedential ruling that the Securities and Exchange Commission could not retroactively apply Dodd-Frank’s industry-wide sanctions on securities professionals for certain securities violations.</li></ul>

Brian Matsui

Partner

Deanne Maynard, co-chair of 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">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="https://www.mofo.com/resources/news/190920-deanne-maynard-appellate-litigator-of-the-year.html">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 also serves on the Board of Trustees of the U.S. Supreme Court Historical Society and is 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 dir="ltr">Supreme Court Arguments</h4><ul dir="ltr"><li>Sandoz v. Amgen <a href="/resources/video-audio/170426-sandoz-v-amgen" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Involving the Supreme Court’s first foray into the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act</li><li>RadLAX v. Amalgamated Bank <a href="/resources/video-audio/120423-radlax-v-amalgamated-bank" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Whether a debtor can sell a secured asset free and clear without permitting the lienholder to credit-bid</li><li>Pacific Bell v. linkLine <a href="/resources/video-audio/081208-pacific-bell-v-linkline" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Whether Section 2 of the Sherman Antitrust Act permits a price squeeze claim in the absence of a duty to deal</li><li>MedImmune v. Genentech <a href="/resources/video-audio/061004-medimmune-v-genentech" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Whether a patent licensee must breach a license agreement before seeking a declaration of patent invalidity</li><li>Ransom v. FIA Card Services <a href="/resources/video-audio/101004-ransom-v-fia-card-services" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> 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 dir="ltr">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 dir="ltr">Representative Appellate Arguments</h4><ul dir="ltr"><li>In re Cirba (Fed. Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/210903-in-re-cirba" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Successfully defeated attempt to revive a jury’s patent infringement verdict against VMware</li><li>Phigenix v. Genentech (Fed. Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/170426-phigenix-v-genentech" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Secured noninfringement judgment for Genentech</li><li>Zabriskie v. Fannie Mae  (9th Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/181018-zabriskie-v-fannie-mae" target="_self">(video)</a> Won reversal for Fannie Mae of a Fair Credit Reporting Act judgment</li><li>Washington University v. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation (3d Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/161108-washington-university-v-wisconsin-alumni" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Obtained reversal for Washington University in suit for royalties due under contract with WARF</li><li>Nevro v. Boston Scientific (Fed. Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/191202-nevro-v-boston-scientific" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Won reversal of district court judgment of invalidity for indefiniteness</li><li>National Business Aviation Assoc. v. Huerta (D.C. Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/180514-aviation-v-huerta" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Successfully defended the City of Santa Monica against a challenge to its settlement with the FAA about its municipal airport</li><li>C.R. Bard v. Angiodynamics (Fed. Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/200601-cr-bard-v-angiodynamics" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Won reversal of district court judgment of noninfringement, no willfulness, and invalidity, reviving client’s infringement case on three patents</li><li>Flores v. UPS & Pocino Foods v. UPS (Consolidated) (9th Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/190409-flores-v-ups" target="_self">(video)</a> 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>BASF v. Johnson Matthey (Fed. Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/171005-basf-argument" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Won reversal of an invalidity ruling against patentee BASF, reviving its patent claims</li><li>Holl v. U.S. District Court (9th Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/190419-holl-v-us-district-court" target="_self">(video)</a> 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>Estate of Graham v. Sotheby’s (9th Cir.) (en banc) <a href="/resources/video-audio/141216-estate-of-graham-v-sothebys" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Won invalidation under the Commerce Clause of parts of a California artist resale royalty law</li><li>In re ATM Fee Antitrust Litigation (9th Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/111206-atm-fee-antitrust-litigation" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Prevailed in a putative nationwide antitrust class action against one of the largest U.S. ATM networks</li><li>Augme Technologies v. Yahoo! (Fed. Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/131205-augme-technologies-v-yahoo" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Secured a noninfringement judgment for Yahoo! in a suit involving Internet display advertising</li><li>Lower Elwha Klallam Indian Tribe v. Lummi Nation (9th Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/170830-lummi-nation-argument" target="_self">(video)</a> Won a reversal for the Lummi Nation, reclaiming its historic treaty rights</li><li>Warsaw Orthopedic v. NuVasive (Fed. Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/141201-warsaw-orthopedic-v-nuvasive" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Obtained vacatur of a jury’s $101 million patent damages award</li><li>Momenta v. Amphastar (Fed. Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/150504-momenta-v-amphastar" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Successfully argued for a patentee that conduct was unprotected by the Hatch-Waxman Act safe harbor</li><li dir="ltr">Neurovision Medical Products v. NuVasive (9th Cir.) <a href="/resources/video-audio/120605-neurovision-medical-products-v-nuvasive" target="_self">(audio recording)</a> Obtained vacatur of a jury’s $60 million trademark verdict</li></ul>

Deanne E. Maynard

Technology

Appellate + Supreme Court

Patent Litigation