home
attorneys
recent matters
practice
contact info
|
|
|
|
Recent Matters .
Trade Secret Litigation
We represent a growing Peninsula-based biotechnology firm in a vigorously contested action where we successfully obtained injunctive relief in the federal district court for the Western District of Pennsylvania. Trial is scheduled for early 2005.
NeogenScreening v. Telechem, Third Circuit, 02-3154 and 02-47287
Copyright/Internet
Represented copyright holder in groundbreaking Internet copyright case. Case led to federal legislation on rights and obligations of Internet Service Providers regarding copyright infringement claims.
Religious Technology Center v. Netcom On-Line Communications Services, Inc., 907 F. Supp. 1361 (N.D. Cal. 1995).
Unfair Competition/Trade Secret Litigation
We represented a small Florida company against a large public company in a contentious bi-coastal Federal court action between competitors in the video technology field where customers include major NFL, NBA and NCAA football and basketball teams. Acting as local counsel, we successfully defended the action winning a defense jury verdict, after first defeating plaintiff's effort to obtain injunctive relief.
Pinnacle Systems, Inc. v. XOS Technologies, Inc.,Northern District of California, C0203894 RMW
Construction Defect Litigation
We represented a homeowner against a Davis, CA-based developer in a construction defect case. After a three-day arbitration, we recovered more than $250,000, including an award of attorneys fees and costs.
Weinman v. Sequoia Associates, American Arbitration Association, 74 110 00868 03 HLT
Breach of Contract/Trade Secret Litigation
We represent China-based entities who have contractual and trade secret disputes involving a U.S. based start up operations in specialized storage technology field. The case was tried to a jury in November 2004, with our clients prevailing on the majority of the plaintiff's claims. Post-trial motions are pending on the remaining plaintiff's claims.
Wei v. Great Wall Technology, Inc. Santa Clara County, CV810361
Internet/Privacy
In representing a client whose primary goal was to preserve his anonymity, we challenged discovery which sought the identity of a pseudonymous poster of messages which were arguably actionable. Posted on a Yahoo! message board it was alleged that these statements were derogatory of a business entity and its employees. We obtained a dismissal of the subpoena and a sanction award against the well-known large law firm seeking the discovery on behalf of its client.
SonicWall, Inc. v. Brett Schecter, Santa Clara County Case No. DC 00 398611.
Construction
We served as trial and appellate counsel in the case of a Southern California engineer who assisted a local physician in the remodel of his Sunnyvale home. When the doctor became unhappy with the results, we acted as trial counsel for the Burbank-based engineer who prevailed at trial and is now before the Sixth District Court of Appeal.
Shahrirar v. Aghelvi,H024882
Appellate/Civil Rights
We acted as appellate counsel in the case of a husband, wrongly charged for the murder of his wife, who brought suit against government authorities upon his acquittal at trial. Trial court dismissal of the action was overturned on appeal.
Galgriath v. County of Santa Clara C-99-20887 WS; 9th Circuit. 00-17369
Internet/Copyright/Malicious Prosecution
We represented an individual in a malicious prosecution action he filed against several prominent law firms and New York based apparel manufacturer base upon claims made against him in New York federal court and then in the Northern District of California that arose out of his alleged "cyber squatting" on a domain sought by a large company. After an unsuccessful mediation effort, our client survived summary judgment and achieved a most satisfactory settlement.
Nash v. K.C.P.L., Inc., Santa Clara County, CV 794158
Corporate Litigation / Technology
We represented a small local technology concern where disputes arose among principals of the company and certain technology became the subject of conflicting claims. We were successful in initially obtaining a temporary restraining order, then a preliminary injunction and, later, a contempt order on behalf of our client.
Ivex Pacific Group v. Korolov, Santa Clara County, CV 798879
|
