Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP


Brian C. Cannon Brian C. Cannon Quinn Emanuel 555 Twin Dolphin Dr., 5th Floor Redwood Shores California 94065 work(650) 801 5000 briancannon@quinnemanuel.com Download vCard Silicon Valley Office Tel: 650-801-5000 Fax: 650-801-5100 briancannon@quinnemanuel.com Practice Areas Intellectual Property Litigation Life Sciences Litigation Education Cornell Law School (J.D., magna cum laude, 1994) Cornell Law Review: Editor Order of the Coif Cornell University (B.A., Biology, 1991) Publications and Lectures "Patent Litigation," 2004 PLI Conference "Intellectual Property Due Diligence and the Emerging Company," Venture Capital Rev. (Spring 2001) "Towards a Clear Standard of Obviousness for Biotechnology Patents," 79 Cornell Law Rev. 735 (1994) Prior Associations Shearman & Sterling, Menlo Park: Partner, 2004-2005 Fish & Neave, Palo Alto: Partner, 2003-2004 Associate, 1997-2003 Law Clerk to the Hon. John L. Coffey, United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 1995-1996 Admissions The State Bar of California; The State Bar of New York; The State Bar of Illinois	Send to a friend Biography Brian Cannon's focus is intellectual property litigation, in particular patent infringement actions. He has litigated and tried numerous patent and trade secret cases, involving medical devices, laser scanning microscopes and semiconductor processing techniques. He was formerly a partner at Shearman & Sterling, and before that, Fish & Neave. He was selected by The Daily Journal in 2011 as one of California’s “Top Biotech Attorneys.” Representative Clients Bio-Rad Google Nellcor Palm Roche Molecular Systems Samsung Notable Representations Authored an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of LabCorp and ARUP Laboratories in Mayo v. Prometheus, No. 10-1150, concerning patentability of laws of nature and medical testing. Successfully represented Bio-Rad and ARUP in patent action involving genetic testing for iron disorders. Argued and won unanimous, precedential Federal Circuit decision affirming judgment. Currently representing Motorola in patent actions against Apple. Successfully represented medical device company Access Closure in jury trial. Successfully represented Roche against Stanford University in case involving HIV diagnostic test kits. Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University v. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., 563 F.Supp.2d 1016 (N.D. Cal. 2008). Obtained successful result on appeal, awarding patent rights to Roche in leading case involving invention ownership rights. 583. F.3d 832 (Fed. Cir. 2009). Successfully represented Google Inc. in patent infringement action concerning Internet search, obtaining summary judgment of non-infringement in E.D. Texas. Successfully obtained orders protecting senior executives and government lobbyists from intrusive discovery. Successfully represented IBM in claim construction hearing in patent action involving servers. Successfully represented Palm Inc in defeating a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction filed against it for trademark infringement on eve of holiday purchasing season. Represented Symyx in defeating temporary restraining order related to trade secrets. Represented medical device company successfully asserting its immunoassay patent portfolio against competitors in United States District Courts and private arbitrations. Authored an amicus brief in United States Supreme Court on behalf of a global telecommunications company in Quanta v. LG, concerning patent exhaustion. Authored an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Time-Warner Inc., IAC/Interactive and Viacom Inc. in KSR International v. TeleFlex, No. 04 1350, decided April 30, 2007, concerning the standard for obviousness for patents. Authored an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Affymetrix, Inc. in support of petitioner in Laboratory Corp. of America v. Metabolite Labs., No. 04-607, decided July 24, 2006, concerning the patentability of DNA gene patents. Authored an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of Time-Warner Inc., Amazon.com, Inc., Google Inc. and others in support of petitioner in eBay, Inc. v. MercExchange, No. 05-130, decided May 15, 2006, concerning the Federal Circuit's automatic injunction rule in patent cases.