Jamie's experience spans the entire range of problems facing technology companies. His expertise includes first-chair jury trials to verdict in cases involving patents, trade secrets, copyrights, trademarks, contracts, and development contracts relating to drug development, including biologics. Jamie has also tried and arbitrated cases in the Delaware Chancery Court and in federal district courts regarding mergers and acquisitions and accounting fraud issues. His experience includes litigating actions brought by private individuals and companies; antitrust regulators; securities enforcement officials; consumer class actions; governmental investigations initiated by the DOJ, FTC, SEC, and Treasury; and many private arbitration and mediations.

Jamie has litigated cases in more than 25 U.S. district courts, as well as extensively outside of the United States. He is familiar with the legal systems in the United Kingdom, Italy, the European Union, Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, and Hong Kong.

Complex Business Disputes:

• Lead trial counsel for Group Canal+ and other affiliates in a highly publicized case brought against NewsCorp's subsidiary, NDS Limited, alleging acts of corporate espionage for competitive advantage in the encryption of satellite TV signals
• Counsel for DirecTV in a complex action against NDS Limited involving breach of contract claims, trade secret misappropriation, and patent infringement counterclaims
• Lead counsel for Cell Therapeutics in multinational litigation involving drug-development agreements for pursuit of a biologic answer to prostate cancer.

Other representative cases include off-label marketing and a false claims act case related to cancer-fighting drugs (Cell Therapeutics); litigation involving development agreements and patent cross licenses with universities related to the development of novel cancer-curing drugs (Epeius); and litigation involving a multinational agreement relating to purchase and sale of disk drives (Seagate Technology).

Trade Secret Cases:

• Lead counsel for start-up Cierra Photonics, in a trade secret misappropriation action brought by JDSU subsidiary, Optical Coating Laboratories, in state court in Santa Rosa, California

James A. DiBoise continued

• Lead counsel for Chiaro Networks in a widely followed trade secret case brought by Alcatel in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. Alcatel tried to claim in this case that its former employees could not plan to leave for a competitive company while on the payroll of Alcatel. The district court judge rejected these arguments, denying Alcatel's request for a preliminary injunction. The case eventually settled at trial.
• Lead counsel for Seagate Technology and the individual defendants in a trade secret case brought by IBM involving the novel theory of "inevitable disclosure" in the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota. This action was favorably terminated after three years of litigation. While the outcome of the case is confidential, three public decisions by the U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota and a panel of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit vindicated defendants against claims of trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract, and rejected the novel theory of inevitable disclosure put forth by IBM to prohibit its former employees from taking competitive employment after leaving IBM.

Other representative trade secret cases include matters for Read-Rite Corporation, KPMG Peat Marwick, Paine Webber, Merrill Lynch, J.D. Edwards., PeopleSoft, 3Dfx, Livingston Technology (now a subsidiary of Lucent Technology), Caly Networks, Metera Networks, Epic Systems, Cierra Photonics, Sonoma Photonics, and Nan Ya Technology (a corporation from the People's Republic of China).

Copyright Cases:

• Lead trial counsel for Real Networks in the first action to result in an injunction issued under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
• Lead trial counsel in an action brought on behalf of CyberMedia against Symantec, which resulted in the first product recall of software that infringed a competitor's copyright. This ruling was subsequently upheld on appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
• Trial counsel for Borland International in the damages phase of its copyright dispute with Lotus Development Corporation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts. This widely followed action ultimately was resolved by a four-to-four vote of the U.S. Supreme Court, affirming the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit's rulings in favor of Borland. The First Circuit's decision was issued while Jamie was selecting the jury in the district court. Jamie's partner, Gary Reback, argued the case in the U.S. Supreme Court.

Patent Cases:

• Lead counsel to Arcturus Engineering in its patent dispute with Incycle concerning methods of replicating in RNA
• Lead counsel to Numerical Technologies in its patent dispute with ASML Holdings, concerning methods of creating semiconductor masks
• Handled many patent lawsuits and licensing negotiations for various clients, including NanYa Technology, NetGear, and Numerical Technologies
• Counsel to Monolithic Power Systems in a patent infringement action filed by O2 Micro International involving DC-to-AC inverter circuits

Unfair Competition and Antitrust Cases:

• TeraStor vs. Seagate Technology, et al.: Involving allegations of unfair competition and antitrust violations in a cutting edge area of technology

James A. DiBoise continued

• Borland vs. Microsoft: Utilizing novel theories of unfair competition and violation of California Business and Professions Code Section 17200 for theft of employees with the intent to injure a competitor's product development
• Blue Mountain Arts vs. Microsoft: A ground-breaking action to prohibit Microsoft's distribution of "beta" software that effectively interfered with an Internet greeting card business
• Livingston Technology vs. U.S. Robotics: Unfair competition involving a breach of contract and usurpation of computer source code for business advantage
• 3Dfx vs. Sega Enterprises and NEC Corporation: Unfair competition in breach of contract to gain intellectual property
• Defending Appleton Papers in a consumer class action for alleged price fixing of thermal fax paper
• Leading the successful effort on behalf of Seagate Technology to obtain regulatory approval for the in excess of $1 billion merger of Conner Peripherals into Seagate from the Federal Trade Commission (without a second request) and from the European Economic Community (without the institution of an "investigation").

Merger and Acquisition Technology Cases:

• Leading the successful defense of Circon from a public tender offer from U.S. Surgical Corporation
• Leading the trial team in Quickturn's successful defense of a hostile tender offer from Mentor Graphics Corporation

• J.D., Stanford Law School, 1978
  Member of the Board of Editors, Stanford Law Review
• B.A., University of Virginia, 1975
  With Honors

• AV Peer Review Rating, Martindale-Hubbell

Jamie has lectured and written on several topics of interest to litigators. He was profiled in the November 1995 issue of California Lawyer on the use of computer databases in litigation. His articles include:

• "The Sooners Play in the Delaware Bowl: Fleming vs. Quickturn," M & A Lawyer, Vol. 2, No. 9, February 1999
• "The Alchemy of Inevitable Disclosure: How Courts Turn Trade Secrets into Non-Compete Agreements," IP Litigator, Vol. 4, No. 2, March/April 1998
• "Inevitable Disclosure Law Remains Unsettled," National Law Journal, May 12, 1997
• "Software Suppliers in U.S. Face New Sales Restrictions," WorldWide Intellectual Property Journal, November/December 1996 (an analysis of the Robinson-Patman Act as applied to the distribution of software)
• "When Disclosure Is 'Inevitable,' Liability Is Not," National Law Journal, May 20, 1996 (up-dating "inevitable disclosure" issues)
• "Global Information Networks: Opportunity and Challenge for the Legal Profession," City Solicitor, the Newsletter of the City of London's Solicitor's Company, August 1995 (concerning the increasing use of computers in litigation)

James A. DiBoise continued

• "Getting around Barriers to Non-Compete Pacts," National Law Journal, February 20, 1995 (discussing the trade secret theory of "inevitable disclosure")

Jamie also writes a column on trade secrets in the IP Litigator, a monthly publication:

• "The End of Inevitable Disclosure and the Meaning of 'Threatened Misappropriation' under California Trade Secrets Law," IP Litigator, March/April 2003
• "Can Defendants Access Trade Secrets?" Intellectual Property Strategist, February 2003
• "A Split Decision on Employee Mobility, but a Death Knell for Inevitable Disclosure in California," IP Litigator, March 2002

• State Bar of California
• U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
• U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
• U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
• U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
• U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
• U.S. Supreme Court