Watson, Scott L.

Scott L. Watson



Scott has a diverse practice that includes intellectual property matters, international tort claims and consumer class actions on behalf of technology clients.  He has extensive experience with trade secret and copyright litigation.  He has also litigated securities and corporate fraud claims and large contractual disputes.  Scott was mentioned in The National Law Journal's 2013 Appellate Hot List as a result of a recent victory in the Federal Circuit.

In the smartphone wars, Scott was the architect of the causation and damages strategy that defeated two separate injunction motions by Apple against Samsung and resulted in a jury award of less than 5.5% of Apple’s requested $2.2 billion damages in a highly publicized trial in spring 2014.

  Representative Clients

  • Samsung
  • Mattel
  • IBM
  • Hitachi Global Storage Technologies
  • Gateway
  • Lowe’s
  • Shell Oil
  • Unisource

  Notable Representations

  • Defeated motion for preliminary injunction, defeated motion for permanent injunction and led causation and damages case that resulted in damages award of less than 5.5% of the amount Apple sought in April 2014 trial between Apple and Samsung in the North District of California.
  • Defeated motion for preliminary injunction against Japanese client based on alleged trade secret theft.
  • Obtained very favorable 8 figure settlement for Penn National Gaming on eve of preliminary injunction hearing in section 1983 civil rights lawsuit against a municipality in Ohio.
  • Represents a class of plaintiffs against a major cigarette manufacturer alleging that the defendant misrepresented the health attributes of light cigarettes.
  • Represents a Jordanian defense sub-contractor in an Alien Tort Statute and RICO case pending in Houston, Texas arising out of the provision of labor at U.S. military bases in Iraq.  Also represents the same client in a False Claims Act case in federal court in Washington DC. 
  • Obtained a litigation cost settlement on behalf of a master land developer in a dispute with a real estate developer who sought almost $700 million in damages for breach of a series of land purchase agreements, after obtaining a ruling that the vast majority of the claimed damages were inadmissible.
  • Obtained dismissal of all claims against three outside directors of Crown Vantage Corporation arising out of $500 million spin-off transaction, which was subsequently upheld by the Ninth Circuit.
  • Obtained dismissal of class action claims against FIA, the governing body of Formula One racing, arising out of the 2005 United States Grand Prix.
  • Successfully argued appeal from a grant of summary judgment in our client's favor in the Ninth Circuit on behalf of major oil company.
  • Won dismissal of Section 17200 and CLRA claims on behalf of technology company in the Northern District of California.
  • Successfully opposed a TRO application in Los Angeles Superior Court on behalf of a company seeking to enforce its non-compete agreement.
  • Represented GE Capital in the McKesson-HBOC merger litigation, arising out accounting restatement related to revenue recognition practices at HBOC; all matters dismissed.
  • Represented a number of high net worth individuals in Marvin actions brought by former girlfriends claiming promises to convey substantial sums and real property.

  Practice Areas

  • Domestic U.S. Arbitration
  • Energy Sector Disputes
  • Intellectual Property Litigation
  • International Arbitration
  • International Trade Commission Proceedings
  • Real Estate Litigation
  • Trade Secret Litigation
  • Patent Litigation


  • Northwestern University School of Law
    (J.D., magna cum laude, 2000) 
    • Northwestern University Law Review:
      • Articles Board
    • Order of the Coif 
  • Claremont McKenna College
    (B.A., cum laude, 1997)


The State Bar of California

  Prior Associations

  • Law Clerk to the Hon. A. Raymond Randolph:
    • United States Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit, 2000-2001

Publications and Lectures

  • "Winstar Damages: Restitution Where Benefit Conferred Is Greater than Plaintiff's Out-of-Pocket Cost," 94 NW. U. L. Rev. 305 (1999)