Quinn emanuel trial lawyers

Appellate Practice

Introduction Print

Quinn Emanuel has an extensive nationwide appellate practice that focuses on briefing and arguing significant cases before the United States Supreme Court, the federal courts of appeals (particularly the Second, Ninth and Federal Circuits), as well as intermediate courts of appeal and high courts of California, New York and other states.  Our appellate experience spans all areas of our practice, from copyright, patent, trademark and trade secret law to antitrust, arbitration, business torts, commercial contracts, financial products, insurance and reinsurance, media, securities, bankruptcy, products liability and white-collar criminal defense.  Our appellate group was recently named to The National Law Journal's prestigious “Appellate Hot List” for 2015, having also been named to that list in prior years.

Our appellate practice is headed by Kathleen M. Sullivan, who joined Quinn Emanuel in 2005 after a storied career as a professor at Harvard and Stanford Law Schools and as Dean of Stanford  Law School, and became the first woman name partner of any AmLaw 100 firm when the firm became Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan in 2010.  One of the nation’s most renowned appellate litigators, she was named in 2013 once again to The National Law Journal’s prestigious occasional list of “The 100 Most Influential Lawyers in America.” Chambers USA (2012) describes her as a “truly terrific” appellate lawyer who wins clients’ approval as a “tremendously agile and a fabulous advocate,” and Benchmark Litigation/Euromoney Legal Media Group named her one of the “Top 10 Women Litigators” in the nation in their inaugural edition of Top 250 Women in Litigation (2012). 

Quinn Emanuel’s immensely talented appellate team also includes Susan R. Estrich, the first woman President of the Harvard Law Review and a former law clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens; Daniel H. Bromberg, a skilled U.S. Supreme Court advocate with experience at every level of appellate courts and special expertise in California appellate courts; Sandy Weisburst, first in his class at U. of Chicago Law School and a former law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas; Christine Chung, former chief of appeals in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and prosecutor at the International Criminal Court; Derek Shaffer, first in his class at Stanford Law School and a former clerk on the D.C. Circuit; William Adams, also a former clerk on the D.C. Circuit with a wide range of appellate experience; and David Cooper, first in his class at Stanford Law School and former law clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. 

Quinn Emanuel’s appellate practice is also uniquely intertwined with its trial practice; the firm’s leading trial lawyers, such as founder John QuinnFaith GayRick WerderPhilippe SelendyMichael CarlinskyRobert RaskopfAdam Abensohn and Christopher Tayback, regularly argue and win significant appeals.  Among our patent lawyers, Charles Verhoeven’s win-loss record in the Federal Circuit is now a remarkable 15-1-1, with Victoria MaroulisDavid PerlsonBrian CannonPeter ArmenioRay Nimrod and Kevin Johnson also routinely scoring important Federal Circuit wins.

Back to Top

Recent Representations Print



  • We recently obtained a unanimous victory in the U.S. Supreme Court for our client Samsung in a case arising from the so-called “smartphones wars” between Samsung and Apple.  In the first design-patent case to reach the Supreme Court in more than a century, the Court reversed a Federal Circuit decision that had upheld a $399 million judgment against Samsung for design-patent infringement, which represented Samsung’s entire profits on smartphones that were found to infringe Apple’s narrow patents on designs for portions of a smartphone’s exterior case or display screen.  Adopting our reading of the statutory text, the Court held that a design-patent plaintiff is entitled to recover only infringer’s profits made from the “article of manufacture” to which a patented design is “applied,” and that an “article of manufacture” may be a product component (such as a smartphone’s outer case).  The Court thus rejected the Federal Circuit’s rule—which Apple had advocated at trial and on appeal—that infringer’s profits must be calculated on the basis of the entire product as sold (such as a smartphone itself). 
  • We obtained an important victory in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of a plaintiff class of consumers challenging price-fixing of ATM access fees by Visa, MasterCard, and the big banks. The Supreme Court had previously granted the defendants’ petition for certiorari from a D.C. Circuit decision upholding the complaint on a motion to dismiss. After we filed our merits brief as co-lead counsel for the plaintiffs, the Supreme Court dismissed the defendants’ petition as improvidently granted, finding that the defendants’ arguments were inconsistent with the question on which the Court had originally granted certiorari. This effectively upholds the D.C. Circuit decision in our favor.We won a unanimous victory in the U.S. Supreme Court in Warger v. Shauers, in which we represented Respondent Randy Shauers. This victory is important because it resolves a long-standing circuit split regarding the application of Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b), which generally prohibits testimony of jurors about statements made during deliberations when the testimony is offered in “an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment.” In the case, Petitioner Gregory Warger appealed a jury verdict finding that Mr. Shauers was not negligent in an automobile accident in which Mr. Warger suffered injuries. Mr. Warger sought to introduce an affidavit of a juror alleging a fellow juror was dishonest during voir dire. In its unanimous opinion, the Supreme Court held that Rule 606(b) prohibits using juror testimony of purported juror dishonesty during voir dire to attempt to overturn a jury verdict and seek a new trial. The Supreme Court was persuaded by our arguments that Rule 606(b)’s plain language and legislative history foreclosed such use of juror testimony.
  • In a case The New York Times called “the most important business decision” of the October 2012 Term, we won a landmark 9-0 victory for Shell Oil in the U.S. Supreme Court in Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, which held that the Alien Tort Statute (ATS), enacted by the First Congress in 1789, does not provide a cause of action in U.S. courts for alleged violations of international human rights law that take place in foreign countries. Applying the presumption against the extraterritorial application of U.S. law, the Court upheld the dismissal of a suit by Nigerian plaintiffs against Dutch and English companies for alleged conduct in Nigeria. The decision greatly curtails the availability of the ATS as a vehicle to sue corporations in U.S. courts for supposedly aiding and abetting foreign governments’ human rights violations.
  • We obtained a 7-2 victory in the U.S. Supreme Court for Roche against Stanford University in a suit involving patents related to HIV treatment that had been developed in a collaboration between Stanford and Roche’s predecessor, Cetus Corporation. The Court held that Roche was a co-owner of the patents in suit and rejected Stanford’s effort to void its prior contracts based on its receipt of federal funding, reasoning that the Bayh Dole Act—the statute governing federal research funding—does not give automatic ownership of patents to universities.
  • We secured a 6-2 victory for Wyeth LLC (part of Pfizer Inc.) in the U.S. Supreme Court in Bruesewitz v. Wyeth, which held that the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act preempts state-law causes of action based on theories of defective design in governmentally-approved child vaccines. The decision has significant implications for public health and the vaccine supply, as it removes design-defect claims that if permitted would have increased manufacturers’ costs and depressed vaccine supply and development.
  • We won an 8-1 victory for Shell Oil in the U.S. Supreme Court in Burlington Northern & Santa Fe Railway v. United States, which greatly limited “arranger” liability under CERCLA and held that Shell could not be held liable as an arranger for shipping useful chemicals. The case also greatly clarified the standards for apportionment in CERCLA suits.
  • We obtained a U.S. Supreme Court victory for Japanese ocean carrier “K” Line in Kawasaki Kisen Kaisha Ltd. v. Regal-Beloit Corp., which held in a unanimous portion of the opinion that ocean carriers are not subject to regulation under the Carmack Amendment when they make intermodal shipments that travel both by sea and by land.
  • In Granholm v. Heald, our lawyers obtained a 5-4 victory in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of California vintners and Michigan consumers challenging state laws imposing discriminatory restrictions on interstate shipments of wine. The Court held that the Twenty-First Amendment does not give states license to interfere with the national market in a way that violates the Dormant Commerce Clause.
  • We have filed numerous amicus curiae briefs in U.S. Supreme Court business cases on behalf of such clients as the Chamber of Commerce, the New York Stock Exchange and NASDAQ, and, in patent cases, such clients as Google, Cisco, Oracle, Red Hat, Symantec, Xilinx, Time Warner, AOL, Xerox, IAC/Interactive, Infineon, Chevron, Shell, and Affymetrix.
  • We have also filed amicus briefs pro bono in the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of such clients as former members of Congress; the American Association of University Professors; former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright; four former Secretaries of the Interior; the Attorneys General of twenty-seven States and the District of Columbia; and the Conference of Chief Justices.

Back to Top


  • We represent Bank of New York Mellon (“BNY”), as Securities Administrator of a Residential Mortgage-Backed Securities (“RMBS”) trust of 6,510 loans with a face value of about $1.275 billion, in a contract lawsuit against the loans’ originator, their seller to the trust, and their servicer, based on breaches of representations and warranties made regarding the credit quality of the loans.  The action was commenced by BNY through other counsel, and the court dismissed the case in its entirety.  The firm was retained for the appeal, and obtained the reversal of the lower court’s dismissal of claims (1) against the loan seller for failure to backstop the loan originator’s failure to repurchase loans which breached the representations and warranties by repurchasing the loans itself, and (2) against the loan servicer, for failing to notify BNY and the trustee when it discovered that the loans breached the representations and warranties.  This ruling permits RMBS suits against parties with such “backstop” repurchase duties even where, as here, claims against the originator itself are deemed barred by the statute of limitations.  And it further opens an additional area of RMBS litigation against servicers for failure to give notice of breaching loans, by confirming that such claims against servicers are not barred by the standard contractual limitations on remedies in RMBS contracts.
  • We represent Computershare Trust Company in a breach of warranty action against Natixis Real Estate Capital concerning warranties Natixis made about loans backing a residential mortgage-backed securitization trust in New York state court. Computershare acts as a separate Securities Administrator on behalf of the trust, and Natixis moved to dismiss, arguing (among other things) that only the trustee could bring the suit. The lower court held that Computershare had standing to bring the suit and, in an issue of first impression, the First Department affirmed. The appellate court's ruling creates new precedent that non-trustees may have standing to bring suits on behalf of securitization trusts.
  • We represented Entergy in a case involving its nuclear power plant, Indian Point Energy Center, which supplies a fifth of southeastern New York’s power. As a result of our successful appeal of an adverse decision, a major obstacle to Entergy obtaining a federal renewal license to operate the plant for another 20 years has been removed.
  • We obtained a 5-0 decision from the New York Court of Appeals for an association of reinsurers vacating a summary judgment in a $400 million reinsurance case and holding that the “follow the fortunes” doctrine does not bar review of whether an insurer’s allocation of a settlement to its reinsurers has an objectively reasonable basis.
  • We secured a 7-0 victory in the California Supreme Court for the University of Southern California in a decision holding that state trial courts have a duty to act as “gatekeepers” in excluding speculative and unreliable expert testimony, a decision that moves the California courts closer to the Daubert standard used in the federal courts and reduces incentives for forum-shopping in complex cases in which expert testimony plays an important role.
  • We won a unanimous victory in the West Virginia Supreme Court vacating all that was left of a $58 million jury verdict against our clients, subsidiaries of AIG involved in an environmental insurance coverage dispute, after we successfully reduced that verdict by $28 million on post-trial motions. The decision made new law limiting the ability of plaintiffs to seek damages against a corporation for alleged injuries to its shareholders.
  • We represented New York Governor David Paterson and Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch in a victory The New York Times called “stunning,” obtaining a 4-3 victory in the New York Court of Appeals holding that Mr. Paterson had the authority to appoint Mr. Ravitch Lieutenant Governor to fill a vacancy in that office created when Mr. Paterson assumed the Governorship.
  • We obtained a unanimous victory for AIG (and its subsidiary AIG Matched Funding Corp.) in the Delaware Supreme Court, which affirmed dismissal of a suit in which eight plaintiffs alleged that AIG breached their guaranteed investment contracts (“GIC”s) in 2008 by triggering the GICs’ event of default provisions.

Back to Top



  • We represented The Coca-Cola Company in the Eleventh Circuit, successfully defending the district court’s dismissal of a complaint asserting claims under the Alien Tort Statute and Torture Victims Protection Act arising out of violence committed by Colombian paramilitaries in and around the Colombian plants of The Coca-Cola Company’s Colombian bottling partners.
  • We also represented The Coca-Cola Company in the Second Circuit, successfully defending the district court’s dismissal of a complaint asserting ATS and other claims under the forum non conveniens doctrine. The complaint concerned police action against union members that occurred in Istanbul, Turkey, allegedly at the behest of The Coca-Cola Company’s Turkish bottling partner. The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s dismissal on the ground that virtually all of the relevant evidence and witnesses were to be found in Turkey.
  • We won a unanimous decision in the Second Circuit in a decision for the The Coca-Cola Company upholding a forum non conveniens dismissal of a case brought in New York on the basis of events that had occurred in Guatemala, after plaintiffs attempted to return to federal court without abiding by the district court’s order that they first pursue a bona fide lawsuit in Guatemala.


  • We represented Wellquest International, Inc. in an appeal from a trial court order denying a motion to compel arbitration.  Unlike a typical broad arbitration agreement, the arbitration provision at issue covered only those claims “arising out of or related to” an audit clause that gave plaintiff the right to initiate an audit for unpaid royalties.  The trial court held that because plaintiff never initiated an audit, the arbitration provision did not apply to claims for unpaid royalties.  The California Court of Appeal reversed, holding that notwithstanding the limited arbitration provision, because the claims for unpaid royalties are “related to” the audit clause, those claims must be arbitrated.  The Court issued its nine-page decision the day after the oral argument, almost unheard of turnaround in a non-emergency appeal.   
  • We represented Ortho-McNeil, a Johnson & Johnson subsidiary, in a unanimous Seventh Circuit victory that made new law narrowing “manifest disregard of the law” as a ground for district court vacatur of arbitral awards and reversed a partial vacatur of an award that had favored Ortho in a dispute over ownership of two patent families relating to new biological drugs for the production of red blood cells.
  • We obtained a victory in the Ninth Circuit for Sequus Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a subsidiary of Johnson & Johnson, that strengthened protection of foreign arbitral awards by holding that the removal provision of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (the “New York Convention”) should be construed broadly to prevent state-court end runs around foreign arbitration.
  • We represented Koch Industries’ INVISTA subsidiaries in obtaining dismissal of an appeal by French chemicals firm Rhodia S.A, which had attempted to obtain a stay of litigation in favor of a foreign arbitration. The decision allowed INVISTA’s claims against Rhodia over rights to an important nylon process to move forward in Delaware state court while the foreign arbitration, involving two Rhodia affiliates and one of the three INVISTA plaintiffs, proceeded.


  • In the federal multidistrict litigation, In re Zoloft, several hundred plaintiffs alleged that use of Zoloft, an antidepressant sold by Pfizer, during pregnancy caused children to be born with birth defects. We, as national and lead counsel for Pfizer, led a defense team that secured an important appellate ruling in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, in which the court unanimously affirmed the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ key causation expert evidence under Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993), and entry of summary judgment in favor of Pfizer.
  • In Porter v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., the plaintiffs alleged that use of Zoloft, an antidepressant sold by Pfizer, during pregnancy caused their child to be born with a birth defect known as omphalocele. We, as national and lead counsel for Pfizer, led a defense team that secured an important appellate ruling in the Pennsylvania Superior Court, in which the court unanimously affirmed the exclusion of the plaintiffs’ key causation expert evidence under the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence (which adopts the standard for expert evidence set forth in Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C. Cir. 1923)) and entry of summary judgment in favor of Pfizer.
  • We obtained a unanimous victory in the Second Circuit, where we defended a dismissal that we previously obtained for AIG in a major False Claims Act case that alleged AIG defrauded the Federal Reserve Bank of New York by hundreds of millions of dollars during the financial crisis.  The case, brought by a former AIG human resources executive-turned-whistleblower, alleged that two insurance subsidiaries that AIG sold to the Federal Reserve in exchange for $25 billion in debt reduction had, for decades, engaged in unlicensed insurance business in New York.  The plaintiff alleged that AIG was complicit in the illegal insurance activity, concealed it from regulators, and deliberately misled the Fed during the negotiations in order to consummate the transaction.  This case posed a potential $2.5 billion liability for AIG under the False Claims Act’s treble damages provision.
  • On behalf of client CIFG, now known as Assured Guaranty, Quinn Emanuel convinced a New York state appellate court to modify the lower court’s dismissal of a misrepresentation claim with prejudice to a dismissal without prejudice, thus allowing CIFG to replead the claim in its effort to recover from Bear Stearns for inducing CIFG to issue financial guaranty insurance regarding collateralized debt obligation vehicles that Bear Stearns had loaded with risky assets.
  • On behalf of our client, G-I Holdings Inc. (“G-I”), we won affirmance in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit of the U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of New Jersey’s dismissal of an adversary proceeding filed by the New York City Housing Authority (“NYCHA”).  The adversary complaint sought injunctive relief compelling G-I itself to remove from NYCHA’s buildings asbestos-containing materials (“ACM”) allegedly manufactured by G-I’s predecessors, and thus threatened to impose liability of at least $500-$600 million on G-I.  NYCHA filed the adversary proceeding to circumvent G-I’s Plan of Reorganization, under which NYCHA’s claim would be paid, if at all, at 8.6 cents on the dollar.  NYCHA argued that, because it was a regulator seeking equitable relief, its claim was not discharged under the Bankruptcy Code or the Plan.  In obtaining dismissal, we persuaded the Bankruptcy Court, District Court, and finally the Third Circuit that NYCHA’s claim was ineligible for the narrow exception to discharge, since NYCHA is not an environmental regulator and does not otherwise possess police powers, was not seeking to remedy ongoing or imminent pollution, and could be adequately compensated by monetary relief.     
  • We won a victory before the Second Circuit for our client PT Bank Mutiara, Tbk.  The Second Circuit affirmed an S.D.N.Y. order we had previously obtained in September 2015 holding the founder of a “hedge fund” and various other of his instrumentalities in contempt and imposing escalating fines of $1,000/day, with the daily fine doubling each month, for failing to return $3.6 million of our client’s money.  The appeals court rejected the arguments of the “hedge fund” and its founder that the district court should not have pierced the veil between them and the fines were disproportionately large.  The Second Circuit’s order reinforces the district court’s broad discretion in imposing contempt, and drives home that a party cannot simply evade responsibilities to pay money by seeking to make itself judgment-proof after an order to return money is entered.  
  • We obtained a unanimous decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, affirming partial judgment in a False Claims Act case against Pfizer.  In this qui tam action, a former employee alleged that Pfizer promoted Lipitor, its top-selling cholesterol-lowering medicine, “off-label,” claiming that Pfizer sales representatives and marketing materials promoted Lipitor for use by certain patients whose cholesterol levels were not low enough to warrant treatment based on national cholesterol guidelines.  The Second Circuit  affirmed the district court’s decision to dismiss these claims, rejecting the relator’s entire theory of “off-label” marketing.  It concluded that cholesterol guidelines summarized in the label merely “provide[d] advice and (unsurprisingly) guidance, ‘not mandatory limitation.’”  The Court also questioned whether the conduct alleged – off-label marketing by sales representative or through promotional materials – could even constitute a false claim to the government.
  • We represented Union Bank in a case involving charitable trust beneficiaries’ claims the Bank mismanaged a trust during the Great Recession and thus caused an alleged $20 million in damages, and we obtained a complete victory at trial and then on appeal.  The charitable beneficiaries asserted the Bank failed to liquidate and thus protect the trust’s assets pending distribution and then improperly delayed distributions.  We persuaded the trial court that the Bank had acted prudently and that the charitable beneficiaries’ choices caused any “damages,” and we successfully defended the victory on appeal.
  • We represented Schenker-Winkler Holding AG, the majority shareholder of Swiss company Sika AG that has been sold to French conglomerate Saint-Gobain, in a case brought by Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation Trust and Cascade Investment, L.L.C. The claimants are minority shareholders of Sika AG and requested the court to rule that Saint-Gobain is obliged to make a public offer to all shareholders of Sika AG. We have obtained a full victory in front of the Swiss Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht) that dismissed all claims asserted by the claimants on the merits.  
  • We represented several Charles Schwab-related entities and individuals in a shareholder derivative suit and securities class action related to the Schwab YieldPlus Fund. Pursuant to the recommendation of a special litigation committee, we moved for, and obtained, dismissal of the derivative and class action claims on summary judgment. The judgment was affirmed on appeal.
  • We represented Financial Guaranty Insurance Company in a case relating to a $900m insurance policy on a credit default swap referencing a $1.5bn collateralized debt obligation.  We obtained a complete reversal from the Second Circuit of the district court’s order dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim, protecting our client’s right to pursue its claims for fraud, negligent misrepresentation, and negligence.
  • On behalf of mortgage insurer United Guaranty, we defeated a third party’s motion to intervene in a district court case in which United Guaranty was a party that risked disrupting the prior resolution of the district court case.  We then defeated the third-party’s appeal to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals.
  • We represented Cointer Chile and Azvi Chile in its appeal of the trial court’s dismissal of a breach of contract claim seeking over $80 million in damages based on Scotiabank’s alleged gross negligence in preparing a financial model, and persuaded the Appellate Division, First Department to reverse the trial court’s decision and reinstate the claim.
  • We successfully represented Colgate-Palmolive Co. in an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit challenging the denial of Colgate’s motions to vacate orders remanding two asbestos-related cases to state court. The court of appeals, sitting en banc, agreed with our argument that 28 U.S.C. 1447(d)’s prohibition on “review[]” of remand orders does not preclude “vacatur” of a remand order pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(3) due to fraud, misrepresentations, or other misconduct in procuring that order. This ground-breaking decision provides a powerful new tool for the defense bar and ensures that federal courts are not impotent when plaintiffs and their counsel seek to avoid federal jurisdiction through misconduct.
  • We represented monoline insurer Assured Guaranty in a suit against DLJ Mortgage Capital and its parent Credit Suisse alleging breach of contract, fraud, and material misrepresentation in the inducement of an insurance contract arising out of defendants’ pervasive misrepresentations concerning the credit quality of mortgage loans underlying six residential mortgage-backed securities transactions sponsored and underwritten by defendants, for which Assured provided financial guaranty insurance. Assured sought damages of approximately $400m. After three years of litigation, including a successful appeal which fully reinstated part of Assured’s breach of contract claims that had been dismissed by the trial court, the suit was settled on mutually agreeable term
  • We represent Dr. Enrico Bondi (Extraordinary Administrator for the former Parmalat companies) in a case involving accounting malpractice and related misconduct by former auditor Grant Thornton S.p.A., the Italian affiliate of Grant Thornton LLP and Grant Thornton International. Dr. Bondi’s case against Grant Thornton was originally filed in Illinois state court but then was removed to federal court and proceeded there for years, resulting initially in a summary judgment in favor of Grant Thornton. We successfully obtained reversal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ordering remand to state court on abstention grounds, and then, when the federal district court in Illinois declined to follow that instruction, we obtained reversal by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit definitively ordering remand to state court so that proceedings may restart on a clean slate. Earlier in the same case we obtained a $150 million settlement against various Deloitte entities, and in a separate proceeding obtained a $100 million settlement against Bank of America.
  • We obtained a unanimous Second Circuit victory for AIG in a suit against Bank of America and other banks who had removed our client’s state-court action against fraudulent RMBS practices to federal court under the Edge Act on the basis of a few mortgages issued by Countrywide, later acquired by BOA, in Guam and other insular territories. The Second Circuit reversed and held the Edge Act inapplicable here and applicable only to suits that arise out of offshore banking or foreign financial transactions by the federal banking corporation that is party to the suit.
  • We obtained a unanimous win in the Second Circuit for the Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA), defeating statute-of-limitations objections by 18 banks sued by FHFA for fraudulent RMBS offerings and obtaining a nationally important ruling that the statute of limitations in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 supersedes the statute of repose in the Securities Act of 1933.
  • We represented several subsidiaries of AIG in successfully overturning in the Second Circuit a $34 million judgment against them in a reinsurance dispute. Taking the unusual step of overturning a jury verdict, the court unanimously held that the claims against our clients were barred by the statute of limitations.
  • We represented Oracle Corporation in the Ninth Circuit, obtaining a unanimous published decision upholding summary judgment in favor of Oracle in a long-running securities class action concerning a drop in stock price just after the beginning of the 2001 recession.
  • We won a Second Circuit victory for Allegheny Energy that not only overturned a $158 million judgment against Allegheny but also reinstated $350 million in counterclaims by Allegheny against Merrill Lynch. On remand, we took over as trial counsel for Allegheny and secured a favorable settlement.
  • In a victory for Empresas Cablevisión, a subsidiary of Mexico’s Grupo Televisa, the world’s largest Spanish-language media company, we obtained and upheld on appeal to the Second Circuit injunctive relief barring JPMorgan from transferring an interest in a loan to a bank controlled by Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim, owner of a company that competes directly with Empresas Cablevisión in the market for media services. The decision led JPMorgan to consent to repurchase the loan interest it had sold to the Slim bank
  • We also represented Grupo Televisa in a case against Florida-based Telemundo for tortious interference with Televisa’s exclusive agreement with one of Spanish-language television’s biggest stars. After the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida granted summary judgment to Telemundo, holding that Televisa’s claims were governed by Mexican law, which does not recognize the interference tort, we convinced an Eleventh Circuit panel to reverse unanimously in a decision with broad ramifications for the many Latin American companies that do business in Florida.
  • We represented AOL Time Warner in the Homestore.com securities litigation, successfully arguing at the district court, on appeal to the Ninth Circuit and again on remand, that Section 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 of the securities laws do not permit third-party “participant” liability—anticipating the successful outcome of the Stoneridge Investment Partners decision in the U.S. Supreme Court.
  • We obtained a win in the California Court of Appeal for QBE Insurance (Europe) Limited and Beazley Syndicate 2623/623 at Lloyd’s reversing a $12 million trial judgment against the two insurers for supposed coverage of losses to restaurants over feared contamination of fresh spinach when it had not been shown that the insured conduct, rather than marketwide events, caused the losses.


  • We obtained reversal in the Fifth Circuit for seven named plaintiffs in an appeal from denial of § 1988 attorney’s fees. In the underlying case, the National Center for Law and Economic Justice obtained a settlement order that resolved a class-action civil rights dispute over Louisiana’s implementation of the federal food stamp program. The district court denied the plaintiffs’ fee request wholesale. Brought in for appeal, QE persuaded the Fifth Circuit to reverse and remand for calculation and award of reasonable fees. QE’s representation was pro bono.
  • We represented Lambda Legal pro bono in an amicus brief to the Seventh Circuit in support of a Honduran citizen living with HIV who petitioned for withholding of removal based on his fear of persecution due to his perceived sexual orientation on account of his HIV status.  Our amicus brief argued that one should not have to live under a cloud of deception to be assured a life free of persecution.  The Seventh Circuit, in a decision written by Judge Posner, agreed with our amicusbrief, holding that the law cannot require people to hide characteristics like religion, sexual orientation, or their medical conditions, to avoid persecution.
  • We obtained a vacatur of the deportation order for a mentally-disabled pro bono client.  The immigration judge had ordered deportation, even though the client has severe mental impairments, a history of abuse in his home country, and strong ties to the United States. We successfully convinced the Board of Immigration Appeals to vacate the immigration judge’s decision based on her failure to take into account his mental impairments. The Board held that there was evidence of incompetency that the immigration judge ignored, and consequently our client deserved a new hearing.
  • Acting as Court-appointed pro bono appellate counsel, we obtained a landmark decision from the Second Circuit holding that (1) various sections of the Immigration and Nationality Act that treat unwed U.S. citizen mothers and fathers differently in terms of their ability to confer derivative citizenship on their children born outside of the United States is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and (2) the appropriate remedy is to extend to unwed citizen fathers the more favorable treatment the statute affords to unwed citizen mothers.  In so holding, the Second Circuit split with the Ninth Circuit on this issue of national importance—an issue that also split the Supreme Court 4-4 (with Justice Kagan recused) when it was presented on appeal from the Ninth Circuit—and dramatically altered the statutory scheme at issue.  The decision has broad implications not only as a matter of constitutional and statutory law, but also for numerous individuals (here in the United States and abroad) who are now deemed to be American citizens as of their birth.  As a result of the decision, the Court declared that Mr. Morales—who has been in federal detention subject to a deportation order for over two years pending the outcome of his appeal—derived American citizenship at birth from his father, and therefore he cannot be deported.  Mr. Morales was released from federal detention the day after the Second Circuit issued its decision.  He is now an American citizen as a matter of law.   
  • We represented Maurice Olivier, a prisoner at Calpatria penitentiary, pro bono.  Olivier sued for Eighth Amendment violations related to his conditions of confinement, including denial of outdoor exercise, constant cell illumination, failure to treat his insomnia, and failure to properly address his heat related medical problems.  The district court dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim for relief.  Quinn Emanuel obtained a complete reversal on appeal, allowing Mr. Olivier to proceed with his claims in the district court.
  • We obtained a unanimous pro bono victory in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in an appeal involving the Individuals with Disabilities in Education Act (“IDEA”), a federal law that guarantees students with disabilities a “free appropriate public education.” Judge Carney (joined by Judges Jacobs and Kearse) issued a 50-page decision vacating the district court’s judgment that had declined to require the NYC Department of Education to pay the tuition for a private program in which our client had placed her severely autistic daughter because she believed that the public school could not offer a safe and appropriate learning environment. The court concluded that our client had standing to seek public payment of that private school tuition even though she had not been able to afford to pay the tuition upfront, holding that “[t]he IDEA promises a free appropriate education to disabled children without regard to their families’ financial status.”
  • We represented Marissa Alexander, a 31-year-old woman and domestic violence victim, in obtaining reversal of her conviction for aggravated assault with a deadly weapon and attendant 20-year mandatory minimum sentence for firing a warning shot to protect herself from her enraged spouse. Florida’s First District Court of Appeal agreed with our contention that the jury instructions regarding Ms. Alexander’s claim of self-defense were flawed in two separate ways, depriving Ms. Alexander of a fair trial.  Following the appeal, we continued to represent Ms. Alexander, eventually negotiating a plea deal that reduced her sentence from twenty years in prison to two years’ community monitoring and time served.
  • We represented the Kamehameha Schools, the world’s largest private K-12 educational trust, obtaining an 8-7 en banc victory in the Ninth Circuit that held that the schools do not engage in “race discrimination in contracting” in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 by giving an admissions preference to the Native Hawaiian schoolchildren for whose benefit they were founded by one of Hawaii’s last monarchs.
  • We represented a pro se plaintiff whose complaint alleging race discrimination under the Fair Housing Act had been dismissed and persuaded the Second Circuit that no heightened pleading requirement exists for civil rights complaints alleging racial discrimination.


  • For our client Google, we successfully defended on appeal to the Ninth Circuit the summary judgment we had obtained of safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act against Perfect 10’s claims of more than two million alleged copyright infringements allegedly hosted by Google’s Blogger service or linked to by Google’s Web and Image Search services.
  • We represented Google and Twitter as amici curiae in the Second Circuit (including being allowed oral argument time) in a successful effort to narrow the tort of "hot news" misappropriation.
  • We successfully defended Time Warner Entertainment and HBO against a $56 million copyright infringement action alleging theft of the ideas for the television show “Six Feet Under.” After we won summary judgment on the ground that any similarities to the plaintiff’s screenplay were too abstract to be copyrightable, the Ninth Circuit affirmed in a published opinion that is now the leading articulation of the proper procedure for evaluating such claims in a television or motion picture context.
  • We successfully defended The Walt Disney Company and Pixar Animation in an appeal from the dismissal of a copyright and unfair competition action relating to the hit movie “Finding Nemo.” The Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed.


  • We successfully obtained reversal of an individual white-collar conviction in the Second Circuit where our client was charged with violating the Iranian trade embargo and operating an unlicensed money transmitting business based on his receipt of family funds sent from Iran through an informal money transfer system called a hawala. The court held that the ITR do not unambiguously prohibit non-commercial remittances, including family remittances, between the United States and Iran, and that the district court had erred improperly equating operation of a hawala with operation of a money transmitting business. Although the Government could have sought a new trial after remand, we convinced the Government to dismiss the remaining charges.
  • We represented Adam Miranda, an inmate who had been on death row since 1982. After two decades of post-judgment litigation, we persuaded the California Supreme Court to grant a writ of habeas corpus vacating the death penalty imposed on the inmate based on exculpatory evidence that the prosecution failed to produce to the defense. Although the Supreme Court ordered a new penalty phase, the State declined to again seek the death penalty.


  • In the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, we successfully opposed an emergency petition seeking shutdown of the Indian Point 2 nuclear power plant, which is owned and operated by our client Entergy.  The petition was filed by Friends of the Earth and two other organizations and alleged that Indian Point 2 should be shut down pending further study of degraded bolts that had been detected in the reactor vessel and replaced.  The petition was filed notwithstanding that the federal regulator, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (“NRC”), had found Indian Point 2 could be operated safely.  The D.C. Circuit set an expedited briefing schedule over the course of a week, and then denied the petition.
  • We successfully represented Entergy Corporation before the Vermont Supreme Court, obtaining dismissal of an original complaint seeking a shutdown of the Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Station. The Vermont Supreme Court held that no equitable grounds for relief existed. We continue to represent Entergy in administrative proceedings in Vermont seeking a new state license for operation of the plant.
  • We won a major federal preemption decision for Entergy in the Second Circuit, which held that the Atomic Energy Act bars Vermont’s effort to prevent continued operation of Entergy’s nuclear power plant Vermont Yankee for reasons of nuclear safety. After winning the issue in a bench trial in the District of Vermont, based on subjective and objective findings of both preempted purpose, we obtained a unanimous affirmance from the Second Circuit upon Vermont’s appeal to the Second Circuit.
  • We represented the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in one of the highest-stakes appellate and environmental litigation matters in years, helping to obtain a ruling in the D.C. Circuit that nationwide greenhouse gas emission standards for automobiles, on which our client had already relied in constructing their 2012 model year fleet, would survive a challenge from a host of states and other industry groups.
  • We obtained a unanimous win for Shell Offshore Inc. and Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. in the Ninth Circuit a decision upholding against environmental challenge EPA’s Clean Air Act air permits for Shell’s operation of drillship Noble Discover in connection with Shell’s exploratory drilling for gas and oil resources on the Alaskan Outer Continental Shelf. In a unanimous published opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that EPA had reasonably interpreted provisions of the Clean Air Act regarding application of “best available control technology” and the “ambient air” boundary around the drillship.
  • We obtained another unanimous victory for Shell Offshore Inc. and Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. in their efforts to explore for oil and gas in the Alaskan Arctic in a decision by the Ninth Circuit rejecting environmental groups’ challenge to EPA’s issuance of Clean Air Act permits for Shell’s operation of the Kulluk drilling unit. The decision held that EPA had reasonably interpreted both the “PSD increment” and the “ambient air” provisions of the Clean Air Act in issuing Shell its permits.
  • We obtained a significant victory in the Ninth Circuit for Shell Offshore Inc. and Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc. in a decision denying petitions for review challenging the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management’s approval of Shell Offshore Inc.’s Revised Camden Bay Exploration Plan under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act and holding that the agency was entitled to significant deference when interpreting the Act, interpreting its own regulations, and making certain technical and scientific assessments. (This was our second win for Shell on such a petition; we obtained a similar win as to an earlier exploration plan in 2010. The court also issued an unpublished memorandum opinion denying petitions for review of the agency’s approval of Shell Gulf of Mexico Inc.’s Revised Chukchi Sea Exploration Plan.)
  • On behalf of intervenor PG&E, we upheld the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s decision to permit PG&E to move spent nuclear fuel into dry cask storage at its Diablo Canyon nuclear power plant near San Luis Obispo, California. A petition for review was filed in the Ninth Circuit by local activists who argued that the Commission had violated the Atomic Energy Act (AEA) and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by denying it access to classified information about limiting the effects of a terrorist attack and issuing an inadequate environmental assessment. In a unanimous opinion, the Ninth Circuit held that neither NEPA nor the AEA required the Commission to hold a closed hearing affording access to classified information and that the Commission’s environmental assessment was sufficient.
  • We represented the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers in appeals before both the Second and the Ninth Circuits, in which we argued that federal fuel economy laws preempted state authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions. Seeking to overturn district court judgments in Vermont and California, we argued that federal law commits the task of balancing fuel conservation against the economic impact on the auto industry to the federal government, not the states. The appeals were ultimately mooted by new federal legislation that raised federal fuel economy standards.


  • We represented a patent applicant in front of the Board of Appeal of the EPO arguing against four decisions of the Examining Division rejecting applications concerning DSL-technology; the first instance decisions were set aside and the cases were sent back to the first instance following our arguments pointing to procedural mistakes made by the Examining Division.
  • We represented Shell in a patent infringement appeal involving benzene purification, and won a unanimous affirmance from the Federal Circuit that Shell did not infringe the asserted patent.  In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit adopted our claim construction and non-infringement arguments in full, holding that the patent required a boiling-point purification process and that Shell's solubility-based purification process did not infringe as a matter of law.  
  • At the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, we obtained a complete reversal of an $85 million verdict of patent infringement against Google in the Eastern District of Texas.  Plaintiff SimpleAir, Inc. had sued Google, Microsoft, and numerous other providers of smartphones and software, claiming its patents covered the technology used to send notifications to mobile devices.  Google, while represented by previous counsel, had been found by two juries to infringe and to owe $85 million in royalties.  On Quinn Emanuel’s successful appeal, the appellate court first reversed the district court’s key claim construction ruling, namely that the term “data channel” could not be a device’s connection to the Internet because that would make the term redundant.  Instead, the Federal Circuit held that the well-known canon of construction that each claim term should be given meaning could not trump the overriding requirement to stay true to the patent’s specification.  As a result, the court of appeals agreed with Quinn Emanuel that the verdicts should be reversed, and instructed the Eastern District of Texas to enter a judgment of non-infringement in favor Google.
  • In a decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit that press reports labeled “a major victory for Samsung in a yearslong, multicase patent dispute over smartphones,” we won an appellate victory that completely eliminated a $120 million judgment that Apple had obtained against Samsung in the Northern District of California.  In the second of two trials in that court, Apple had sued Samsung for infringement of five patents, demanding more than $2 billion in damages.  We succeeded at trial in limiting Apple’s damages to $120 million for supposed infringement of three patents.  On our appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed as to all three, holding that Samsung did not infringe Apple’s ’647 (Quick Links) patent and that Apple’s ’721 (Slide to Unlock) and ’172 (Auto Correct) patents are invalid as obvious in light of the prior art.  At the same time, the Federal Circuit affirmed all the rulings we won at trial, including the jury’s findings that Samsung did not infringe Apple’s ’959 (Remote and Local Search) patent or Apple’s ‘414  (synchronization) patent, and that Apple infringed Samsung’s ‘449 (compressing and organizing photos) patent.  With this ruling, Samsung emerges as the net winner:  the only remaining damages are $158,400 that Apple owes to Samsung for infringement of Samsung’s ’449 patent.  
  • We represented TransWeb in the defense of patent infringement claims asserted by 3M and the pursuit of antitrust claims against 3M.  After a two-and-half-week trial, we obtained a unanimous jury verdict that 3M’s asserted patent claims were invalid, not infringed, and (in an advisory capacity) unenforceable due to inequitable conduct.  The jury also found that 3M violated the antitrust laws by attempting to enforce fraudulently obtained patents against TransWeb and awarded lost profits and attorneys’ fees as antitrust damages, resulting in an approximately $26 million judgment.  The district court subsequently adopted the jury’s advisory verdict that 3M had committed inequitable conduct rendering the asserted patents unenforceable.  On appeal by 3M, the Federal Circuit issued a unanimous and precedential decision affirming the judgments entered below, including specifically the finding of inequitable conduct before the Patent and Trademark Office and the award of trebled attorneys’ fees as antitrust damages pursuant to the Walker Process fraud claim.
  • We represented Samsung and HTC in a case involving patents related to the online payment for and distribution of content, such as apps, videos, and music.  Weeks before trial, we obtained a reversal of the district court order denying a motion to stay the case pending covered business method review of the patents by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
  • We secured a key victory at the Federal Circuit for our client Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc., an innovator pharmaceutical company, in a “bet-the-company” Hatch-Waxman patent litigation relating to Avanir’s flagship Nuedexta® product.  Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark of the District of Delaware had previously issued a well-reasoned and thorough 63-page opinion in Avanir’s favor.  Our adversary appealed, and oral argument was held on Friday, August 7, 2015.  The morning of Monday, August 10, 2015—less than one business day later—the Federal Circuit issued a Rule 36 affirmance of the District Court’s decision, thereby ensuring patent protection for Nuedexta® until 2026.  
  • We represented Microstrategy, Inc. in a case involving four patents relating to online analytical processing.  After achieving  a complete win at the district court, we obtained a decision affirming the district court’s rulings on claim construction and non-infringement from the Federal Circuit.
  • We represented Google, AOL, IAC, Target, and Gannett in litigation accusing Google’s AdWords and AdSense systems of patent infringement. We obtained reversal of a jury verdict of infringement and validity and an award of $30.5 million in damages. The district court had also imposed ongoing royalties amounting to 1.35% of Google’s accused U.S. AdWords and AdSense revenues from 2012-2016. The Federal Circuit reversed the district court by finding all asserted patent claims invalid for obviousness. This ruling overturned both the jury verdict and the district court’s post-judgment royalty order, thus precluding not only the $30.5 million verdict but also ongoing royalties of 1.35% of advertising revenues (Google’s main source of revenue) from the accused services for four years.
  • We obtained a win for our client Samsung in the Federal Circuit vacating a preliminary injunction against Samsung’s Galaxy Nexus on the ground that Apple had failed to show causal nexus to harm. The court also held that, under the proper claim construction, the Galaxy Nexus likely does not infringe Apple’s ‘604 patent.
  • We represented Bancorp Services in a case where the Federal Circuit reversed a trial court’s finding of invalidity of our client’s patent. In obtaining reversal, our lawyers faced an opposing appellate team that included two former Solicitors General of the United States.
  • After being brought into the case as lead trial counsel several months before trial, we obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on behalf of Barnes & Noble in a case involving allegations that Barnes & Noble’s NOOK eReader devices infringed two patents claiming methods of synchronizing data in multiple devices over a network. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
  • Brought in five months before trial to defend Google’s AdSense advertising products against Function Media’s $600 million claim of infringement of three patents, we won a unanimous jury verdict of both non-infringement and invalidity in the Eastern District of Texas in Google’s first patent trial and a complete affirmance of the judgments in the Federal Circuit.
  • We won a Federal Circuit affirmance of the summary judgment of non-infringement that we won for American Express Company against SpendingMoney LLC in the District of Connecticut, in which the court ruled that American Express's Travelers Cheque Card does not infringe SpendingMoney's patent.
  • We represented The Dow Chemical Company in a Federal Circuit appeal of a jury verdict we obtained in Dow’s favor in a patent infringement litigation against Nova Chemicals Corp. and Nova Chemicals Inc. Including prejudgment interest, Dow was awarded $76 million in damages, with additional supplemental damages expected. We led the briefing on appeal and assisted with oral argument. The Federal Circuit affirmed Dow’s victory, and the Supreme Court denied Nova’s petition for writ of certiorari.
  • We won affirmance of stipulated judgment of non-infringement for American Express in a case concerning Amex's contactless expresspay card products where we won an early favorable claim construction for American Express.
  • We successfully defended Genentech, Inc. in high-stakes patent litigation brought by Sanofi-Aventis Deutschland in the Eastern District of Texas. Sanofi sought damages on Genentech’s Rituxan® and Avastin® products, which earn billions of dollars in revenues each year. After we secured a writ of mandamus from the Federal Circuit transferring the case to the Northern District of California—in an opinion now routinely cited in transfer motions—the district court granted summary judgment of non-infringement of all asserted claims, which the Federal Circuit affirmed.
  • On appeal to the Federal Circuit, we won affirmance of a complete summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity that we had obtained for clients Belkin, Cisco, D-Link, and NETGEAR in the Northern District of California after we successfully transferred the case from the District of South Carolina.
  • Representing Google, we brought and won an early summary judgment motion of invalidity. The patent-in-suit was asserted against Google by Paid Search Engine Tools ("PSET"). PSET had accused Google's AdWords system of infringing the patent, which involved a bid management system that could adjust bidders' bids in online auctions in order to obtain their desired positions and eliminate "bid gaps." The Federal Circuit affirmed.
  • On behalf of Google and AOL, we won affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement in a litigation in which the patent-in-suit was asserted against the defendants by Performance Pricing Inc., an Acacia entity. Performance Pricing had accused Google’s AdWords and AOL's Search Marketplace systems of infringing the patent, which involved a method of doing business over the Internet "wherein various forms of competition and/or entertainment are used to determine transaction prices between buyers and sellers.”
  • We won affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement for Google in a patent infringement litigation in which plaintiff sought in excess of $150 million in past damages and a royalty on future revenue in the billions. The litigation concerned the AdWords auction system used by Google to sell advertisement space.
  • We obtained a complete victory for Sony Electronics Inc. ("Sony") and 15 other defendants in a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas and the Federal Circuit against Intellectual Capital Holdings Limited ("ICHL"). In a case that had far reaching damages implications for Sony and other manufacturers of computers, gaming consoles, televisions and any other products that use a heat sink to reduce internal heat, we convinced the Magistrate Judge, District Court Judge, and the Federal Circuit that the defendants' products did not infringe ICHL's patent.
  • We obtained a complete victory on claim construction, a stipulated judgment of non-infringement, and an award of over $600,000 in attorney fees and sanctions for our client Flagstar Bancorp in a patent infringement case related to converting hard copy documents to computer files using templates and content instructions. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment in its entirety.
  • We obtained a complete reversal of a $12 million patent infringement judgment on behalf of Yahoo! Inc. The plaintiff alleged that the Yahoo! Instant Messenger feature called “IMVironments” infringed a patent on displaying advertisements in the background of electronic messages. The trial in the Eastern District of Texas, at which Yahoo! was represented by another firm, resulted in a finding of willful infringement and no invalidity, and the district court ordered a 23% ongoing royalty. On appeal, we persuaded the Federal Circuit that the district court erred by not resolving a key claim construction dispute and not granting Yahoo!’s motion for judgment as a matter of law of no infringement.
  • We represented American Express Co. in a patent infringement action targeting its gift card products, in which plaintiff PrivaCash sought over $100 million in past damages and future royalties. The firm obtained a dismissal of codefendant American Express Incentive Services, LLC ("AEIS") early in the case after proving that AEIS's gift cards were distributed and sold in the business-to-business environment and therefore could not infringe plaintiff's patent. We then sought and secured a favorable claim construction ruling for remaining defendant American Express, and subsequently the district court entered summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of American Express. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
  • We represented Forest Laboratories and H. Lundbeck as defendants in a patent infringement action brought by Infosint in the Southern District of New York regarding the manufacture of their antidepressant drugs CELEXA® and LEXAPRO®, which had over $2 billion in annual U.S. sales. We convinced the district court to rule that no reasonable jury could fail to find the asserted patent invalid due to obviousness. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
  • We obtained a complete victory for Cisco in a closely watched patent infringement dispute. The plaintiff, a patent holding company, asserted a patent on a method for Voice over Internet Protocol telephony against Cisco’s line of Integrated Services Routers. After discovering that the invention had been conceived while the inventor was subject to an invention assignment agreement with his former employer, we successfully moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of standing. The Federal Circuit affirmed.
  • We won affirmance of summary judgment of non-infringement for Google in a patent infringement litigation in which plaintiff sought in excess of $150 million in past damages and a royalty on future revenue in the billions. The litigation concerned the AdWords auction system used by Google to sell advertisement space on search results pages for Google.com and partner sites.
  • We represented Nike in its defense of a $40 million design patent and trade dress action brought by a rival shoe company over the translucent heel piece on Nike’s Air Jordan XVII basketball shoe. After our consumer survey persuaded the plaintiff to dismiss its trade dress claim, the court adopted our proposed patent claim construction on the design of the heel piece and granted summary judgment of non-infringement to Nike. Following a nearly hour-long argument centered on the use of broken lines to signify boundaries in design patents, the Federal Circuit affirmed.
  • We represented GameTech International in Planet Bingo LLC v. GameTech International, Inc., where the Federal Circuit established a new standard for determining infringement under the doctrine of equivalents that focused the analysis on the foreseeability of the asserted equivalent, before affirming a pre-trial judgment in favor of Gametech on both non-infringement and invalidity grounds.


  • We represented a ninety-year-old, disabled World War II veteran in successful defense in the California Court of Appeal of a judgment vacating the transfer of over 1,000 acres of ocean front property north of Malibu based upon the exercise of undue influence, restoring to our client real estate estimated to be worth up to $200 million.
  • We successfully upheld on appeal to the California Court of Appeal a $30 million judgment against the Town of Mammoth Lakes that we obtained on behalf of real estate investors in an action for breach of a development contract.


  • We represent a Russian government agency, Federal Treasury Enterprise Sojuzplodoimport (FTE), which is seeking to establish that it is rightful owner of the world-famous Stolichnaya trademarks.  The district court dismissed FTE’s trademark infringement claims for lack of standing, ruling that the Russian Government’s assignment of its ownership interest in the trademarks to FTE violated Russian law and was therefore invalid. We obtained unanimous reversal in the Second Circuit.  The panel held that the district court violated principles of international comity and the act of state doctrine by even considering the validity of the Russian Government’s actions under Russian law. As a result, the panel reversed the district court and reinstated FTE’s trademark infringement claims.
  • On behalf of Mattel, Inc., we obtained a complete reversal in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals of a $172.5 million judgment entered against Mattel following a jury verdict on a trade-secrets misappropriation claim raised by toy company MGA Entertainment, Inc. The Ninth Circuit agreed with Mattel that MGA’s trade-secrets claim, which was raised as a “counterclaim-in-reply,” was procedurally barred because it was not a “compulsory” response to any claim Mattel had raised, and therefore “should not have reached this jury.” The Ninth Circuit therefore vacated the jury verdict and remanded the claim to the district court with instructions that it be dismissed.
  • We successfully represented George V and Creative Designs, owners of the world-famous (and federally-registered) BUDDHA-BAR trademark and proprietary restaurant concept, in a case they brought against their former licensee for trademark infringement and dilution regarding their unauthorized use of the BUDDHA BAR trademark and concept in connection with a Manhattan restaurant. The New York Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the trial court’s denial of our clients’ motion for preliminary injunction and held that the small disclaimer placed on defendant’s website was not sufficient to dispel likely consumer confusion.
  • We won an appeal in the Third Circuit on behalf of LendingTree arising in the context of a trademark and false advertising suit filed in New Jersey federal court by a competitor to shut down LendingTree’s marketing of an innovative online real estate broker network. Presenting an issue of first impression in the Third Circuit, we persuaded the court to adopt a modified version of the doctrine of “nominative use” as a defense to trademark infringement, resulting in the vacatur of a preliminary injunction issued by the district court.
  • We represented the Washington Redskins in the long running case brought by six Native American petitioners who challenged the Washington Redskins’ trademarks on grounds of disparagement. In a little used “de novo” appeal to the D.C. District Court, we succeeded in overturning an adverse decision by the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. We then successfully defended that decision on grounds of laches before the D.C. Circuit and on remand to the District Court, thereby ending nearly two decades of litigation.
Back to Top