Jason Wu is a lawyer in Orrick’s San Francisco office and a member of the Complex Litigation and Dispute Resolution group.

Jason’s practice focuses on defending large multinational companies in complex commercial litigation in state and federal court. His practice also involves federal class action defense, trade secrets litigation, and a wide variety of business disputes in U.S. and international forums.

Some of Jason’s representations include the following:

  • Representation of Global Fortune 500 Chinese company and subsidiaries in nationwide class action multidistrict litigation.

  • Representation of major multinational technology company in class action alleging violations of New Jersey Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty, and Notice Act (“TCCWNA”) relating to online Terms and Conditions.

  • Representation of startup company against former employee in California state trade secrets injunction proceedings.

  • Representation of a large public utility in regulatory enforcement proceedings arising out of a natural gas pipeline accident and related state civil trial and appellate litigation.

  • Representation of Qatari car dealership in International Chamber of Commerce arbitration proceeding in Frankfurt, Germany.

  • Representation of educational institution in insurance coverage suit relating to underlying claims of misrepresentation and fraud.

  • Representation of corporate directors and officers in fraudulent concealment and derivative claims suit.

  • Representation of Supervisory Board member of German company in defamation suit.

Jason has also been actively engaged with pro bono clients. His work has included successfully obtaining a grant of asylum for a Guatemalan refugee and representing artists in copyright disputes.

Array

Posts by: Jason Wu

Breaking Up is Hard to Do: Ninth Circuit Confirms Insurer’s Duty to Defend Ends Only When Case Clearly No Longer Has Potentially Covered Claims

On January 27, 2017, the Ninth Circuit affirmed a California district court’s rulings and jury findings that an insurer breached its duty to defend, recognizing that under California law, the expansive duty continues until the case clearly contains no potentially covered claims. The court rejected the insurer’s reliance on the policy’s prior noticed claims exclusion, and affirmed the finding that the insurer denied coverage in bad faith because the insurer anticipated denying the claims from the outset.

In Millennium Laboratories, Inc. v. Darwin Select Insurance Company, Millennium Labs sought personal and advertising injury coverage for underlying cases brought by two of its rivals, Ameritox and Calloway, alleging false advertising. Darwin denied coverage, refusing to provide a defense under its commercial general liability policy. Millennium sued Darwin for declaratory relief to establish Darwin’s duty to defend, breach of contract, and bad faith. The district court granted Millennium summary judgment on the duty to defend, and the jury found that Darwin’s denial of coverage was in bad faith.

READ MORE