“One of the most reputed IP powerhouses in the world.” – Benchmark Litigation
“Renown for hiring the brightest talent and for its dazzling transactional and litigation work.” – WTR 1000: The World’s Leading Trademark Professionals
“Fantastically gifted lawyers. Irell & Manella is the firm to turn to for ‘bet the company’ cases.” – Chambers USA
Los Angeles Newport Beach 1800 Avenue of the Stars 840 Newport Center Drive Suite 900 Suite 400 www.irell.com Los Angeles, CA 90067-4276 Newport Beach, CA 92660-6324 T: 310-277-1010 T: 949-760-0991 About Irell
Irell & Manella LLP was founded in 1941. From our two Southern California locations, we serve clients worldwide. The firm is defined by its culture of service to clients, community and the legal profession.
The firm has one of the nation's oldest and deepest intellectual property litigation practice of any general practice law firm. For decades, Irell & Manella has steadily gained a world-renowned reputation for taking on and winning high-profile intellectual property cases for plaintiffs and defendants alike. From patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret litigation and international transactions and arbitration; from state and federal trial and appellate courts to the Supreme Court of the United States; Irell & Manella has posted an unparalleled track record of success for its clients. We are proud to have been selected to handle intellectual property matters on behalf of well-known, industry-leading companies and preeminent academic and research institutions.
Our firm is known for its rigorous selection of lawyers. We insist on outstanding academic credentials, but we also place a premium on creativity, experience, and common sense. We are dedicated to creating a collegial environment in which lawyers at all stages of their careers can flourish and enjoy the practice of law. An uncompromising commitment to excellence and client service has distinguished our firm within the legal industry.
By developing lawyers who combine specialized expertise with broad-based legal knowledge, and by training new lawyers to undertake significant responsibility early in their careers, we are able to achieve outstanding results with lean staffing. Our firm is big enough to handle the largest and most complex matters, but small enough to maintain excellence at every level. The firm and its attorneys have been consistently recognized by clients and colleagues for leadership and achievement.
Irell & Manella's strength and depth in intellectual property extends well beyond patent law and high technology litigation. The firm has handled some of the most significant copyright cases in the nation. The attorneys throughout the firm's intellectual property practice are internationally known as leaders in the field, including the current author of the leading treatise on copyright law, Nimmer on Copyright. Irell & Manella attorneys are frequently sought by technology, media, university and entertainment clients from around the globe. In every endeavor, Irell & Manella brings to bear decades of experience and peerless performance in intellectual property law.
LOS ANGELES T: 310-277-1010 | NEWPORT BEACH T: 949-760-0991 | WWW.IRELL.COM IP Litigation
For over thirty years, Irell & Manella LLP’s intellectual property litigation practice has stood at the intersection of Irell & Manella’s litigation and high-technology/intellectual property practices, creating one of the country’s foremost practices of its kind. In a landmark case against Microsoft, Irell & Manella obtained a $120 million jury verdict for infringement of Stac’s data compression patents. Irell & Manella also successfully defended the alleged infringer in the first trial ever involving a computer software patent. Chambers and Partners, publishers of the Global Directory of the World’s Leading Lawyers, regularly ranks Irell & Manella among the top IP firm naionally and in 2005, selected the firm as the U.S. Intellectual Property Law Firm of the Year. Irell & Manella's intellectual property litigators are nationally known as leaders in the field, and are frequently sought not just by technology clients, but by leading national and international conferences of intellectual property specialists.
Our intellectual property litigation practice covers intellectual property, including patents, trademarks and copyrights, the protection of trade secrets, and the unfair competition and antitrust issues so frequently involved in intellectual property matters. We are also called upon in significant commercial disputes with intellectual property overtones, such as disputes involving licensing, the transfer of intellectual property rights, or technology-related transactions. Irell & Manella obtained a jury verdict on behalf of City of Hope that was the largest damage award ever affirmed on appeal by California courts in any area of law. More than $565 million was paid to City of Hope by the defendant. The action arose from Genentech's failure to pay royalties relating to fundamental technology that created the biotechnology industry. The depth of our experience with intellectual property issues, our facility with handling technical matters, and our legal innovations have all contributed to our successful representation of our clients in these matters. The attorneys in our intellectual property litigation practice are adept at handling the most technically and legally challenging matters. Many have advanced technical degrees; all have extraordinary academic records.
Irell & Manella’s patent litigation practice is bounded by neither geography nor technical subject matter. As lead counsel, we have litigated patents from every technology discipline, including software, semiconductors, computer peripherals, visual effects, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical products, telecommunications, industrial machinery, video games and e-commerce. We are proud to have been selected to litigate patent matters on behalf of well-known, industry-leading companies such as TiVo, eBay, Novellus, Broadcom, St. Jude Medical and Western Digital, as well as many younger, growing corporations. We also represent a number of leading academic institutions, including Columbia University and the University of Illinois.
Some of our recent engagements illustrate the depth and breadth of our patent litigation practice. For example, we obtained numerous victories and settlements resulting in more than $1 billion being paid to DVR market leader TiVo in patent infringement litigations; we obtained a settlement of $80 million in up-front payments and significant future royalty payments for Tessera, Inc. in a patent and antitrust litigation involving semiconductor packaging; we obtained an $82 million verdict against Sony Computer Entertainment in a patent infringement matter involving Immersion’s “force feedback” technology, which ultimately led to more than $150 million being paid by Sony to Immersion; we represented Hewlett-Packard in a nationwide series of cases against Xerox relating to inkjet and laser printer technology; the firm obtained a dismissal on summary judgment of a patent infringement suit against visual effects leader Lucas Digital Ltd. (Industrial Light & Magic) relating to
LOS ANGELES T: 310-277-1010 | NEWPORT BEACH T: 949-760-0991 | WWW.IRELL.COM IP Litigation (continued)
special effects employed in the film Forrest Gump; we successfully represented the Ireland-based pharmaceutical company Elan Corporation in defending claims of patent infringement asserted by Bayer A.G. relating to high blood pressure drugs; and we represented biotech leader Affymetrix in cases relating to genetic sequencing and nucleic acid array technology.
We also represent clients in litigation in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Trademark Trial and Appeal Board and the Court of Appeals to bring and defend oppositions and petitions to cancel. We represent plaintiffs and defendants in copyright and trademark litigation, seeking and defending temporary restraining orders, preliminary injunctions, and trials on the merits. We have represented clients in high-profile copyright and trademark litigation. For example, David Nimmer and Jane Shay Wald successfully represented Dastar on the briefs of a case before the U.S. Supreme Court in which Fox claimed a Lanham (Trademark) Act violation for omission of its name on public domain videos of President Eisenhower’s memoirs. We represented publisher Matthew Bender in the Southern District of New York and Second Circuit in a copyright action successfully challenging West Publishing Company’s claim to copyright in “star pagination,” in judicial decisions collected in West reporters; we represented video game publisher Activision in a trademark action against MicroProse involving rights to the mark “Civilization”; and we represented Intel against Cyrix and AMD in trademark litigation involving Intel’s MMX™ technology.
Representative Matters:
The following is a selection of patent-related litigation matters that Irell & Manella has handled:
TiVo Inc. v. EchoStar. Irell & Manella represented TiVo, the developer of the first commercially available digital video recorder and leader in developing and licensing the technology that allows television viewers to control their viewing experience. Irell filed suit on behalf of TiVo against EchoStar for patent infringement, asserting that EchoStar’s DVRs infringed TiVo’s “Multimedia TimeWarp” patent. After a two-week jury trial in March/April 2006, the jury concluded that EchoStar had willfully infringed TiVo’s patent and awarded TiVo $74 million in damages. Following the jury trial victory, Irell prevailed in a bench trial held in June 2006, defeating all of EchoStar’s remaining equitable defenses. In August 2006, the Court awarded TiVo over $15 million more in supplemental damages and prejudgment interest, and entered a permanent injunction against EchoStar. On January 31, 2008, the Federal Circuit published a decision affirming the judgment in favor of TiVo, including the full damages award, and instructed the district court to determine what additional post-judgment damages should be awarded to TiVo (516 F.3d 1290). Despite the injunction, EchoStar continued sales, and as a result Irell instituted contempt proceedings on TiVo's behalf against EchoStar. After a three day evidentiary hearing that included six live witnesses, the District Court agreed with TiVo, found EchoStar in contempt and awarded sanctions and additional damages. On March 4, 2010, the Federal Circuit agreed with TiVo on all issues and affirmed the District Court's findings against EchoStar. The Federal Circuit then decided to re-hear the case en banc and on April 20, 2011, ruled that DISH Network and EchoStar must disable certain DVRs that were found to infringe TiVo's "Time Warp" patent. Shortly after, a settlement was reached. DISH Network and EchoStar paid TiVo over $600 million, including more than $100 million that had already been paid.
TiVo Inc. v. Verizon Communications, Inc. Irell filed suit on behalf of TiVo against Verizon in 2009 in Texas, alleging that Verizon infringed three of TiVo's DVR technology patents. In September 2012, shortly before
LOS ANGELES T: 310-277-1010 | NEWPORT BEACH T: 949-760-0991 | WWW.IRELL.COM IP Litigation (continued)
trial was scheduled to begin, a settlement was reached in which Verizon agreed to provide TiVo with total compensation worth at least $250 million. As part of the settlement, TiVo and Verizon agreed to dismiss all pending litigation between the companies with prejudice. The parties also entered into a cross license of their respective patent portfolios in the advanced television field.
TiVo Inc. v. AT&T. Irell filed suit on behalf of TiVo against AT&T in 2009 in Texas, alleging that AT&T's U-verse products and services infringed three of TiVo's patents covering DVR technology. In 2010, AT&T launched a counter-suit in California accusing TiVo DVRs of violating three AT&T patents. In January 2012, just days before a trial, AT&T agreed to pay TiVo $215 million plus per subscriber monthly license fees through July 2018 when AT&T's DVR subscriber base exceeds certain levels.
St. Jude Medical Inc. v. Access Closure, Inc. Irell & Manella represented St. Jude Medical in a patent case alleging infringement by Access Closure of St. Jude's patents relating to vascular closure devices. The jury returned a verdict of willful patent infringement and awarded St. Jude $27.1 million in damages, reportedly the largest jury verdict in any area of law in the Western District of Arkansas. The court subsequently granted St. Jude's motion for a permanent injunction against the infringer.
Peer Communications v. eBay and Skype. Irell & Manella represented defendants eBay and Skype in a patent infringement suit related to internet communications, including what is known as VoIP (voice over internet protocol). After claim construction, the district court entered judgment for eBay and Skype based on patent invalidity and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed.
Netcraft Corp. v. eBay. and PayPal. Irell & Manella represented eBay and PayPal in a patent infringement action regarding on-line payment technology. After claim construction, the district court entered judgment for eBay and PayPal based on non-infringement, and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed.
Microprocessor Enhancement Corp. v. Texas Instruments, Inc. Irell & Manella represented Texas Instruments in this case in the Central District of California. Microprocessor Enhancement Corporation is a subsidiary of patent holding and enforcement company Acacia Research. Acacia is one of the country's largest and most aggressive serial files of patent litigation, claiming to control some 60 separate patent portfolios. Acacia sued Texas Instruments for patent infringement, asserting that the architecture of TI's high-performance C6000 line of digital signal processing chips infringed Acacia's patent. Acacia sought over $94 million in damages and a permanent injunction against future sales of these products. Irell & Manella obtained a complete victory for TI. Following the close of discovery, Chief Judge Alicemarie H. Stotler ruled in TI's favor on summary judgment, finding that TI did not infringe the Acacia patent, that all claims of the patent are invalid, and that TI should recover its litigation costs. MEC appealed this decision and Irell argued the case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On April 1, 2008, the Federal Circuit affirmed the judgment of non-infringement in favor TI, in a published decision.
AmberWave v. Intel. Irell & Manella represented AmberWave in its patent infringement lawsuits related to AmberWave's strained silicon technology, which is critical to current and future microprocessors. After protracted litigation, the case settled with Intel taking a license to all of AmberWave's patents and patent
LOS ANGELES T: 310-277-1010 | NEWPORT BEACH T: 949-760-0991 | WWW.IRELL.COM IP Litigation (continued)
applications.
Tessera v. Micron and Infineon. Irell & Manella successfully represented Tessera, Inc., a global leader in the development and licensing of semiconductor packaging technology. Tessera alleged patent infringement by Micron and Infineon, two of the world's largest manufacturers of DRAM, which is used as main memory in computer systems. Tessera further alleged that the defendants anticompetitively colluded to forestall widespread adoption of Tessera's patented technology, as part of their efforts to monopolize and then fix prices in the DRAM market. Shortly before jury selection, both Micron and Infineon agreed to resolve the case for $30M and $50M, respectively, in up front payments, and royalty-bearing licenses to Tessera's patents on confidential terms.
Ultratech Stepper, Inc. v. Canon, Inc. and ASM Lithography, Inc. Irell & Manella represented ASM Lithography, a leading manufacturer of photolithographic equipment, which is used to make semiconductor chips. Ultratech sued ASML as well as Nikon and Canon, the other two top photolithographic equipment manufacturers, for patent infringement of “step and scan” machines. Nikon and Canon settled with Ultratech early on in the case. ASML went to trial, arguing that its own “step-and-scan” machine constituted prior art. After a four-week jury trial, the jury returned a verdict for ASML, finding all asserted claims of the patent at issue invalid.
Stac Electronics v. Microsoft Corp. Irell & Manella represented a relatively small, independent, computer software developer, Stac Electronics, in this bet-the-company lawsuit against software giant Microsoft. The suit asserted that Microsoft had infringed Stac’s patented data compression technology. After an intense year of pretrial conflict, in which Microsoft devoted enormous resources to the litigation, the case concluded in a month- long jury trial. The jury found that Microsoft infringed two Stac patents and awarded Stac $120 million. After the firm secured a sweeping post-verdict injunction requiring Microsoft to recall infringing products worldwide, the case settled.
Immersion v. Sony. Irell & Manella represented Immersion in this patent infringement litigation regarding complex tactile sensation technologies used in the popular Playstation videogame system. After trial in August and September 2004, the jury awarded $82 million to Immersion, and the trial court subsequently entered a permanent injunction against Sony’s sale of the infringing product (which was stayed pending appeal, conditioned on Sony’s payment of a royalty for the duration of the appeal). Ultimately, Sony's appeal was dismissed and Immersion received more than $150 million.
Immersion v. Microsoft et al. In an earlier action in which Immersion asserted the same patents against Microsoft with respect to the Xbox videogame system, Microsoft settled shortly after the claim construction hearing. Under the settlement, Microsoft agreed to pay Immersion $26 million for certain license rights to Immersion’s patent portfolio and an equity stake in the company. Microsoft also agreed to lend Immersion up to $9 million in convertible debt.
City of Hope National Medical Center v. Genentech, Inc. Irell & Manella represented City of Hope, a non-profit bio-medical research institute and hospital against Genentech, one of the largest biotechnology companies in the world. The suit alleged that, in an effort to deprive City of Hope of hundreds of millions of dollars in royalties, Genentech concealed numerous third-party licenses it had granted to patents that City of Hope had assigned to Genentech under a 1976 agreement. The patents at issue arose from early groundbreaking inventions
LOS ANGELES T: 310-277-1010 | NEWPORT BEACH T: 949-760-0991 | WWW.IRELL.COM IP Litigation (continued)
discovered by City of Hope scientists in the field of recombinant DNA technology. After a six week trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of City of Hope. The compensatory damage judgment was the largest award ever affirmed on appeal by California courts in any area of law. More than $565 million was paid by the defendant to City of Hope.
Grayzel v. St. Jude Medical, Inc. Irell & Manella successfully defended St. Jude Medical, Inc. in a patent case relating to vascular closure devices. These devices are used at the end of angioplasty and other cardiac catheterization procedures. The number of cardiac catheterization procedures increased by 400 percent from 1979 to 2002; there are now over 1.5 million such procedures each year in the United States alone. Dr. Joseph Grayzel, a director of one of St. Jude’s vascular closure device competitors, sued St. Jude for patent infringement, seeking to enjoin St. Jude’s AngioSeal vascular closure device and recover a portion of the more than $1 billion in AngioSeal revenue. After discovery closed, St. Jude moved for and was granted a summary judgment of patent invalidity, and the lawsuit was dismissed.
Conner Peripherals v. Western Digital Corp. Irell & Manella represented Western Digital Corporation, a premier maker of hard disk drives, in a case referred to by the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California as possibly “the largest patent litigation in history.” The action involved Conner, Western Digital, and IBM, and more than 20 electrical and mechanical patents relating to disk drive technology. The case against Western Digital was dismissed with prejudice in 1995.
Novellus Systems v. Applied Materials. Irell & Manella represented patent owner Novellus in this lawsuit concerning physical vapor deposition tools and methods for depositing metal onto semiconductor wafers. In 1999, as Novellus was in the process of acquiring the PVD assets of Varian, Applied Materials sued Novellus on four patents related to semiconductor manufacturing equipment and methods. Novellus brought a counter-suit against Applied Materials. Over the seven year period before negotiating a favorable global settlement between the parties, Irell & Manella, on behalf of Novellus, precluded Applied Materials from relying upon various invalidity contentions, defeated in whole or in part three summary judgment motions brought by Applied Materials, and succeeded in having all four of the patents asserted against Novellus dismissed entirely.
Xerox v. Hewlett-Packard. Irell & Manella represented Hewlett-Packard in seven different intellectual property cases against Xerox that were brought in Rochester, New York; San Jose, California; Idaho; and Kansas. After the firm obtained summary judgment in favor of Hewlett-Packard in the initial case filed by Xerox, the parties settled all litigation between them.
Bloomstein v. Lucas Digital, et al. Irell & Manella represented defendants Lucasfilm and Lucas Digital in a patent infringement litigation concerning techniques used to create visual effects in a number of films, including Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones, and Forest Gump. The firm obtained a dismissal of all claims on a summary judgment of noninfringement and a ruling that one of two asserted patents was invalid. The firm also obtained an affirmance in the Federal Circuit.
Amstrad plc v. Western Digital Corporation and Western Digital U.K., Ltd. Irell & Manella represented Western Digital against the British computer manufacturer’s $200 million contract and warranty claims concerning Western Digital’s hard disk drives. The matter was tried to two juries and ended in a complete defense verdict.
LOS ANGELES T: 310-277-1010 | NEWPORT BEACH T: 949-760-0991 | WWW.IRELL.COM IP Litigation (continued)
The National Law Journal named the result, which was affirmed on appeal, one of the Top Fifteen Defense Verdicts of 1999.
Hewlett-Packard Co. v./adv. Repeat-O-Type Stencil Mfg. Corp. Irell & Manella represented Hewlett-Packard in two separate actions against Repeat-O-Type involving Hewlett-Packard ink-jet cartridges for ink-jet printers. In the first action, Hewlett-Packard sued Repeat-O-Type for trademark infringement and state law tort claims. At trial, we obtained compensatory and punitive damages, plus an award of attorneys’ fees. In the second action, Repeat-O-Type sued Hewlett-Packard for antitrust violations relating to its ink-jet cartridges. We obtained a complete dismissal of Repeat-O-Type’s complaint.
Affymetrix v. Incyte Genomics; Hyseq v. Affymetrix. Irell & Manella represented DNA microarray manufacturer Affymetrix in a series of high-stakes patent litigations in the Northern District of California. First, the firm asserted Affymetrix’s microarray patents against Incyte Genomics, Synteni, and Hyseq. The firm also defended Affymetrix against Hyseq’s claims that Affymetrix’s DNA microarrays infringe Hyseq’s “sequencing by hybridization” patents. The firm also represented Affymetrix against Incyte Genomics’ claims of patent infringement based on Affymetrix’s preparation of genetic sample materials for analysis.
Sonus Pharmaceuticals v. Molecular Biosystems, et al. Irell & Manella represented Sonus, a Bothell, Washington-based pharmaceutical company in patent litigation relating to “ultrasound contrast agents,” drugs used to enhance the results of ultrasound scans. The firm represented Sonus in asserting its patents against Molecular Biosystems and Mallinckrodt Medical in the Western District of Washington. After the client obtained a summary judgment finding literal infringement, rejecting various invalidity challenges to the asserted patents and dismissing all counterclaims, the matter was favorably settled. The firm also represents Sonus in the Western district of Washington and the District of Massachusetts in litigation against DuPont involving the same patents.
Bayer AG v. Elan Corporation plc. Irell & Manella represented Elan, the Ireland-based pharmaceutical company, in a series of patent infringement suits brought by Bayer relating to drugs used to treat high blood pressure. In one of the actions, the firm obtained a summary judgment of noninfringement and an affirmance of that summary judgment in the federal circuit. We also represented Elan in other suits brought by Bayer under the same patents, which ended in a settlement.
Pfizer, Inc. v. Elan Pharmaceutical Research Corp., et al. This case involved the interplay of patent law and the law governing FDA approval of new drugs. Pfizer filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Elan in federal court in Delaware, seeking an injunction to block FDA approval of Elan’s once-daily version of the cardiovascular drug nifedipine, which would compete with Pfizer’s Procardia XL (a blockbuster drug with more than $1 billion in annual sales). Irell & Manella, representing Elan, succeeded in persuading the court to dismiss the suit.
Chou v. The University of Chicago, et al. Irell & Manella successfully represented vaccine company Aviron in a multi-party litigation in the Northern District of Illinois relating to inventorship of several genetic engineering patents. The firm obtained dismissal of all damage claims against Aviron, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that decision.
LOS ANGELES T: 310-277-1010 | NEWPORT BEACH T: 949-760-0991 | WWW.IRELL.COM IP Litigation (continued)
Oklahoma Medical Research Foundation v. Eli Lilly & Company. Irell & Manella represented pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly in a high-stakes patent infringement and licensing litigation in Oklahoma relating to Lilly’s blockbuster drug for sepsis, Xigris. After the firm filed summary judgment papers asserting that the plaintiff’s patent was not infringed and invalid, the parties reached a settlement.
AIDS Healthcare Foundation v. GlaxoSmithKline, plc. Irell & Manella represented pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline in a patent and antitrust case relating to its blockbuster AIDS drug AZT and various AIDS combination therapies. The firm obtained dismissal of all the plaintiff’s claims, including claims that GlaxoSmithKline’s AZT patents were invalid and procured by fraud, and the plaintiff ultimately agreed to dismiss its claims.
Medical Analysis Systems, Inc. v. Biopool International, Inc, et al. Irell & Manella successfully represented a Southern California biomedical products company in a complex trade secret litigation. The case involved allegations that individual defendants and Biopool International misappropriated portions of proprietary chemical formulae and techniques.
Candle Corporation v. Boole & Babbage, Inc. This was the first trial ever involving any patent on computer software. Irell & Manella represented Candle Corporation in attacking the validity of a patent issued on software performance monitors for large mainframe installations. Irell & Manella won the case, which was concluded after a two-month jury trial.
For more information, please contact:
Morgan Chu, Esq. Irell & Manella LLP 1800 Avenue of the Stars, Suite 900 Los Angeles, California 90067-4276 Email: [email protected] Telephone: (310) 203-7000
LOS ANGELES T: 310-277-1010 | NEWPORT BEACH T: 949-760-0991 | WWW.IRELL.COM Awards
Irell & Manella LLP is one of the nation's leading law firms:
Chambers & Partners named Irell & Manella the "U.S. Intellectual Property Law Firm of the Year" in 2005 and, has recognized the firm among the top nationally in its rankings of IP firms in the U.S. every year since. Chambers describes our lawyers as "fantastically smart, strategic and invaluable in patent litigation" and says "when you're on the brink and nothing less than a miracle is needed, this is the firm you choose."
The Legal 500 US also ranks Irell's Patent Litigation practice in the top tier nationally, noting that the firm is a top-pick "for the most complex and highest-exposure patent cases."
In 2012, the Daily Journal named four of our lawyers as "Top IP Litigators in California." No firm had more attorneys on the list. The Daily Journal also named two of our IP litigators among the 2012 "Top 100 Attorneys in California."
The National Law Journal named Irell & Manella to its inaugural IP Hot List in 2012.
Irell received the 2012 M&A Deal of the Year Award from the International Financial Law Review for its representation of Research In Motion in connection with its acquisition of patents from Nortel Networks' patent portfolio in a bankruptcy proceeding.
38 Irell attorneys were selected by their peers for inclusion in the 2013 edition of The Best Lawyers in America.
Super Lawyers Magazine selected 58 of our lawyers for inclusion in the 2013 edition of Southern California "Super Lawyers" or as Southern California "Rising Stars" in their fields.
Our IP litigators have recently received numerous other awards and honors, including: - 2013 California Lawyer of the Year Award (CLAY) (California Lawyer) - 2013 IP Rising Star (Law360) - 2012 “Who’s Who in L.A. Law: Angelenos to Know in Intellectual Property Law” (Los Angeles Business Journal) - 2012 "Power Lawyer" (Hollywood Reporter) - 2012 IP MVP (Law360)
The head of our litigation group has received recognition as: - one of the decade's most influential lawyers (National Law Journal) - one of the top ten trial lawyers in the U.S. (National Law Journal) - one of the ten most admired attorneys (Law360) - one of the 25 most influential people in IP (The American Lawyer) - one of the 100 most influential lawyers in the U.S. (National Law Journal) - the top intellectual property lawyer in the U.S. (Chambers & Partners)
LOS ANGELES T: 310-277-1010 | NEWPORT BEACH T: 949-760-0991 | WWW.IRELL.COM Pro Bono
Pro bono work is an important and rewarding part of our profession. As a firm, we are proud of and support the work our lawyers do on behalf of those in need.
Irell & Manella is a signatory to the American Bar Association's Pro Bono Challenge, reinforcing our firm-wide commitment to provide pro bono legal services to low-income and disadvantaged individuals and families as well as nonprofit groups.
“Irell associates receive full billable credit for pro bono hours. We take on new pro bono matters each month and provide them with the same level of excellence – the same level of attention, dedication and creativity – as we do for our paying clients.” – Michael Ermer, Irell & Manella Pro Bono Chair
Recent Pro Bono Matters
● Together with the ACLU of Southern California and Dean Erwin Chermerinsky of U.C. Irvine Law School, secured a major victory on behalf of the homeless community in a federal civil rights lawsuit against the City of Laguna Beach and its police department, challenging the constitutionality of the city's anti-camping ordinance.
● In connection with the Iraqi Refugee Assistance Project and Loyola Law School, representing Iraqi refugees in life or death situations in the Middle East in connection with resettlement applications.
● Together with both AMVETS and the Inner City Law Center, representing military personnel and Veterans in connection with matters relating to VA benefits appeals, discharge upgrades, traumatic service group life insurance appeals and issues arising under the Service Members Civil Relief Act.
● Representing a number of individuals who were victims of mortgage foreclosure-rescue scams.
● Successfully obtained lawful permanent residency for a young Chinese girl who was a victim of child trafficking.
● Representation of L.A. County's homeless in an action against L.A. County and several major slumlords of single-room occupancy hotels.
● Secured over $265,000 for nine garment workers who sought to recover unpaid wages and penalties in an administrative proceeding before the California Labor Commissioner.
● In connection with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal Pro Bono Program, working to keep a family together by representing two members as petitioners in an immigration proceeding on appeal.
● Filed an amicus brief in the United States Supreme Court on behalf of nine states and Puerto Rico challenging a California law and preserving the First Amendment.
LOS ANGELES T: 310-277-1010 | NEWPORT BEACH T: 949-760-0991 | WWW.IRELL.COM Pro Bono (continued)
● Argued before the U.S. Supreme Court on behalf of an individual indicted for and convicted of federal wire fraud for allegedly plotting to defraud the Canadian government of tax revenue.
● Represented an elderly individual who suffered financial abuse at the hands of fraudulent and deceptive estate planning organizations.
● Represented two high school students against the Orange Unified School District concerning the students’ right to form a gay-straight alliance club. In a ruling of national importance, the court held under the Equal Access Act that the students had a federally protected right to assemble.
● Represented an 83-year old mother of five children and four foster children, who was the victim of financial elder abuse by her grandson.
● Took a leading role in preventing the City of Santa Ana from shutting down a Catholic Worker House homeless shelter.
● Assisted the Thai Community Development Center with an investigation of alleged illegal human trafficking of Thai national workers.
● Assisted Bright Star Schools, a local nonprofit organization that operates charter schools serving underprivileged students, in the foundation of a new high school.
● At the request of the California Supreme Court, represented a death row inmate and obtained a summary judgment ruling that he had been denied his Sixth Amendment right to self-representation. This was the first time since the reinstatement of the death penalty in California that a capital conviction was overturned in toto by a federal district court.
● Represented two immigrants in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. After filing our opening brief, the Department of Homeland Security stipulated that our position was correct and the case should be remanded to be decided under the proper legal standard.
● Represented an artist in a successful claim under the Visual Artists Rights Act to prevent the modification of an artwork created by the artist.
LOS ANGELES T: 310-277-1010 | NEWPORT BEACH T: 949-760-0991 | WWW.IRELL.COM Community Involvement
Irell & Manella is committed to supporting many community organizations throughout Southern California and nationwide. The firm's attorneys and staff engage in a wide variety of public service activities, including funding research institutions and scholarship programs, sponsoring nonprofit events, nonprofit board leadership positions and participating in volunteer work.
City of Hope's Irell & Manella School of Biological Sciences
Irell & Manella's relationship with City of Hope, one of America's preeminent research and treatment centers, began in 1998 when the firm started representing City of Hope in a landmark intellectual property lawsuit. Before long, the firm's passion for City of Hope's case evolved into a passion for its cause. In 2002, Irell & Manella began expanding the relationship with City of Hope by making gifts in support of the graduate school's endowment and also establishing a symposium and a lecture fund. Individual lawyers also made gifts for the school's endowment and the firm's staff took on the cause, making quilts on their own time for City of Hope patients undergoing painful treatment. Then the firm started to consider doing something bigger and more unsual. The idea emerged to make a major grant to the graduate school. This ultimately took the form of a $5 million donation, which was matched by a $5 million anonymous gift. An additional gift of $2 million created the Irell & Manella Visiting Professorship. The firm also donated $3 million to establish the Irell & Manella Cancer Director's Distinguished Chair. On May 15, 2009, City of Hope named its graduate school the Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences.
Public Counsel's Irell & Manella Chair in Public Interest Law
In 2012, Irell & Manella established the first-ever endowed chair for Public Counsel, the nation’s largest pro bono law firm. Paul Freese, vice president of Public Counsel, currently serves as the Irell & Manella Chair in Public Interest Law. Public Counsel's activities are far-ranging and impact the lives of people living at or below the poverty level, support the growth of nonprofits and small businesses, and affect public policy through litigation and advocacy. Public Counsel’s attorneys are active in, among others, veterans’ advocacy, homelessness prevention law, children’s rights, immigrants’ rights, appellate law and federal pro se.
Irell is a committed provider of pro bono legal services and has a long record of support for the activities of Public Counsel. Partner Morgan Chu is the longest-serving board member at Public Counsel. Irell associates and partners are currently handling numerous pro bono matters through Public Counsel for various clients in need, including mortgage fraud victims and veterans.
Additional Charitable Giving
Irell & Manella established the Irell & Manella Foundation through which the firm donates to a variety of causes and endows a number of educational institutions, including:
● Public Counsel's Irell & Manella Chair in Public Interest Law
LOS ANGELES T: 310-277-1010 | NEWPORT BEACH T: 949-760-0991 | WWW.IRELL.COM Community Involvement (continued)
● Columbia University Law School's leadership prize for first-year law students
● UCLA Law School's Lawrence E. Irell Prize
● USC Law School's Arthur Manella Scholarship
In addition to the foundation, the firm's Outreach Committee organizes a number of giving and fundraising events throughout the year, including bake sales, raffles, food and school supplies drives, and participation in the American Cancer Society's daffodil days.
Irell staff members and attorneys also volunteer with a number of local charity organizations, including Food from the Bar, Adopt-A-Family and Habitat for Humanity.
Community Leadership
Attorneys in the firm have for many years held senior leadership positions in many local and regional non-profit, public-interest and legal organizations, as well as educational, cultural and art institutions.
LOS ANGELES T: 310-277-1010 | NEWPORT BEACH T: 949-760-0991 | WWW.IRELL.COM Diversity
Irell & Manella LLP is ranked as one of the 30 most diverse firms in the country in the American Lawyer annual Diversity Scorecard.
MultiCultural Law Magazine consistently ranks Irell among the "Top 100 Law Firms for Diversity" as well as the "Top 50 Law Firms for Partners."
These rankings reflect our commitment to attracting and promoting the highest quality attorneys and creating an environment where attorneys of all races, ethnicities, and sexual orientations can thrive based on merit.
LOS ANGELES T: 310-277-1010 | NEWPORT BEACH T: 949-760-0991 | WWW.IRELL.COM