Jacob Heath, an associate in Orrick’s Silicon Valley office, is a member of the Intellectual Property group. His practice focuses on copyright and trademark actions.
He also has experience in representing clients in various federal and state litigation matters, including white collar criminal investigations, real estate litigation, business contract disputes and construction disputes.
Some of Jacob's experience includes appearing in federal court and successfully arguing a motion to continue discovery dates. He has also appeared in California Civil Court, successfully arguing demurrers to complaints and ex parte applications to continue trial, and he appeared at numerous case management conferences and status conferences in federal and state court. He also represented clients at mandatory settlement conferences and deposed witnesses and co-defendants in general civil litigation. Jacob has extensive experience in carrying out Internet enforcement actions involving cybercrime, fraud and deceptive activity, brand violations, intellectual property infringement and privacy breaches.
While working for other law firms, he gained extensive client contact. He has assisted in preparing a witness for grand jury testimony in a federal investigation and advised directors of a national sports association on its contractual relationship with community colleges and municipalities in Southern California. In addition, he has advised managing directors of mortgage brokers and lenders on potential liability and settlement prospects and also interviewed and prepared clients’ employees for depositions.
Order Granting Summary Judgment On Dropbox Laches Claims, Dropbox, Inc. v. Thru Inc., Case No. 15-cv-01741-EMC (Judge Edward M. Chen)
The proverb “[e]quity aids the vigilant, not the sleeping ones” aptly describes the rationale behind the defense of laches-i.e., the legal doctrine which states that a plaintiff who unjustifiably delays pursuing a claim may forfeit it. Intended to encourage the timely resolution of disputes and to avoid prejudice to defendants, laches can have dire consequences for plaintiffs who unreasonably delay bringing their claims. READ MORE →
Johnstech Int. Corp. v. JF Microtechnology SDN BHD, Case No. 14-cv-02864-JD (Judge James Donato)
Buddha said, “To be idle is a short road to death and to be diligent is a way of life; foolish people are idle, wise people are diligent.” This is a lesson Judge James Donato bestowed on the parties in Johnstech Int. Corp. v. JF Microtechnology SDN BHD, when he denied, in part, JF Microtechnology SDN BHD’s (“JFM”) motion to amend its invalidity contentions after the close of fact discovery to correct a clerical error and to add a new prior art reference and invalidity theories. Judge Donato allowed the clerical correction but denied JFM’s remaining amendments as JFM “failed to manifest the required degree of diligence.” READ MORE →
Civil litigation can sometimes be less than civil or efficient. Indeed, some parties have been found to engage in “abusive” discovery practices or dilatory tactics intended to prolong and increase the costs of litigation. This has not gone unnoticed by courts, parties, and commentators, including the Advisory Committee on Rules of Civil Procedure (the “Committee”). In August 2013, the Committee proposed amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“the Rules”) aimed at curbing certain abusive practices, amongst other things. The amendments include changes to Rules 1, 4, 16, 26, 30, 31, 33, 34, 36, and 37, and would impact numerous aspects of litigation including service of process, discovery (including electronically stored information (“ESI”)), default judgments, and possibly pleadings requirements. READ MORE →
The NorCal IP Blog has reported on multiple decisions granting or denying leave to amend infringement contentions. See http://blogs.orrick.com/norcal-ip/?s=infringement+contentions. A constant theme throughout has been the Northern District’s strict adherence to the Patent Local Rules for guidance on allowing amendments. Magistrate Judge Howard R. Lloyd echoed that theme this week in Delphix Corp. v. Actifio, Inc., Case No. 13-cv-04613 BLF (HRL), when he granted defendant/counterclaim plaintiff Actifio, Inc.’s (“Actifio”) motion to amend its infringement contentions. Critical to his decision was plaintiff/counterclaim defendant Delphix Corp.’s (“Delphix”) production of source code and over 500,000 pages of new information about the accused product, not otherwise available to Actifio. READ MORE →
Patent licensing company Inventegry, Inc. recently suffered some setbacks when Judge Edward M. Chen denied its motion to dismiss and Anti-SLAPP motion to strike several claims that plaintiff Sonus brought as part of its declaratory judgment action. READ MORE →
Uber has faced its share of challenges of late, from the established taxi community to cities considering bans on Uber’s ride-sharing service. Last week was more of the same, as Judge Jeffrey S. White handed Uber a loss in the Northern District in Halpern v. Uber Technologies, Inc., Case No. 15-cv-02401-JSW. Judge White remanded back to San Francisco Superior Court a trade secret misappropriation action brought by plaintiffs Kevin Halpern and Celluride Wireless READ MORE →
March 2015—like January and February—saw decisions on a variety of fronts from ND Cal judges. ND Cal judges demonstrated their willingness to apply the Supreme Court’s decisions in Nautilus and Alice to invalidate patents on summary judgment. Nautilus held claims invalid if they “failed to inform, with reasonable certainty, those skilled in the art….” Judge Alsup applied that reasoning in Aquatic AV, Inc. v. Magnadyne Corp. et al., Case No. C 14-01931, where he found Aquatic’s asserted claims invalid, in part, because the its definition of “hermetically seals” lacked sufficient fixed meeting: “taking our patentee at its word that ‘hermetically seals’ has no fixed meaning.” READ MORE →
Koninklijke Phillips N.V., et. al. v. Elec-Tech Int’l Co., Ltd., et al.,, Case No. 14-cv-02737 (BLF) (March 20, 2015)
Plaintiff Koninklijke Phillips N.V. (Phillips) and its subsidiary Phillips Lumileds Lighting Company LLC sued Elec-Tech, a Chinese company, and a number of its subsidiaries and employees for the alleged theft of Phillips’ LED lighting technology. The claim arose from the alleged theft of Phillips’ proprietary “epitaxy” technology and confidential business information by a former Phillips principal development engineer that Elec-Tech had hired, Dr. Gangyi Chen. Phillips alleged that Dr. Chen had received up front compensation while he was still employed by Phillips and shortly before his departure to Elec-Tech. READ MORE →
Parties suing in the United States with foreign-based witnesses take heed, as you may find your foreign-based witnesses traveling to the United States for depositions. On February 12, 2015, Magistrate Judge Paul Grewal issued an Order in Corning Optical Communications Wireless, Ltd. v. SOLiD, Inc., Case No. 5:14-cv-03750-PSG, in which he instructed the plaintiff, Corning Optical Communications Wireless, Ltd. (“Corning”), to produce its witnesses residing outside of the U.S. for depositions in the Northern District of California. After weighing several factors, Judge Grewal concluded that having foreign-based witnesses deposed in the Northern District was the “most equitable solution.” READ MORE →
Most mark the beginning of a new year with a moment of reflection on the past year’s follies and lessons learned. In 2014, there were a fair number of lessons learned regarding pleading, discovery, and how to survive a motion to dismiss. To start off 2015, we look back on some of the decisions from the Northern District that were most popular amongst our readership, and the lessons they provide.