Attorney Detail Banner
Back to Attorneys
Cannon, Brian C.

Brian C. Cannon

Direct Tel: +1 650-801-5055
Silicon Valley
Tel: +1 650 801 5000 Fax: +1 650 801 5100

Brian Cannon has extensive experience in all aspects of intellectual property and commercial litigation.  He has deep experience advising companies on technology matters, including contractual, antitrust and competition law disputes.  He has tried numerous cases, involving medical devices, biotech processes and cell phone technology.  In addition to a trial practice, he represents clients in matters before the Federal Circuit, the 9th Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court, and he advises companies in licensing and contractual matters.  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.”

  • Currently representing Samsung in appellate matters against Apple, including the successful appeal of Apple v. Samsung, Nos. 2015-1171, -1195 (Fed. Cir. 2016) reversing entirety of verdict against Samsung.
  • Successfully represented Motorola in patent, contract and antitrust actions against Apple and Microsoft in the Northern District of Illinois, the Western District of Wisconsin, the International Trade Commission, the Ninth Circuit and the Federal Circuit.
  • Successfully represented Google in patent and competition law actions involving standards setting organizations.
  • Successfully represented Pfizer in contract dispute involving ownership of biotech inventions pending before Delaware Chancery Court.
  • 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.
  • 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). Counsel for Roche before Supreme Court, which affirmed successful result. 131 S. Ct. 2188 (2011).
  • 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 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.,, 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. 
  • Cornell Law School
    (J.D., magna cum laude, 1994)
    • Cornell Law Review:
      • Editor
    • Order of the Coif
  • Cornell University
    (B.A., Biology, 1991)
  • The State Bar of California
  • The State Bar of New York
  • The State Bar of Illinois
  • 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
  • "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)
  • Member, Board of Directors and Executive Committee for the Make-A-Wish Foundation for the Greater Bay Area