Will Fitton

Will Fitton

Education
  • B.S., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Finance, with honors,
    Beta Alpha Psi (Accounting), Outstanding Student in Insurance and Risk Management
  • J.D., Yale Law School,
    Editor-in-Chief of Yale Journal on Regulation, Thomas Swan Barristers’ Union
Bar admissions
  • State of California
  • District of Columbia
  • Northern District of California
  • Central District of California
  • Eastern District of California
  • Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Representative Cases

Perma-Liner Industries, LLC v. NuFlow Technologies U.S.A., Inc. (District of Delaware)

Defending NuFlow Technologies U.S.A. in patent litigation involving UV technology to cure resins for pipe repair.

Planner 5D v. Meta Platforms, Inc. et. al. (Northern District of California)

Represented Planner 5D in copyright and trade secret lawsuit alleging unauthorized acquisition and use of 3D models for artificial intelligence training. The case settled on confidential terms.  

Fortunas, LLC, et al. v. Joseph E. Raphel, et al. (Contra Costa Superior Court)

Representing high net worth family in corporate governance and breach of contract and fiduciary duties dispute with general partner of high value real estate-holding entities.

Kevin Halpern, et al. v. Uber Technologies, Inc., et al. (San Francisco Superior Court)

Obtained complete dismissal of trade secret misappropriation claims against Uber in which plaintiff claimed to have invented the technology behind Uber’s application platform.

USA ex rel. B. Barnette, et al. v. CardioDx, Inc., et al. (Northern District of California)

Defended founder and former CEO of a genomic expression diagnostic for coronary artery disease in a Medicare reimbursement claim under the False Claims Act. The case settled on confidential terms.  

Covidien L.P. v. Penumbra, Inc. (Trademark Trial & Appeal Board)

Represented Penumbra in Covidien’s Opposition to Penumbra’s trademark application for its endoscopic brain surgery system. The case settled on confidential terms.  

Toppan Photomasks, Inc. v. Keun Taek Park (Northern District of California)

Defended Mr. Park against trade secret misappropriation claims related to plasma dry etching process to create photomasks. The case settled on confidential terms.  

Balsam Brands Inc. v. Cinmar, LLC d/b/a Frontgate (Northern District of California)

Successfully prosecuted a patent infringement case against nationwide retailer Frontgate concerning foldable Christmas trees.

Lexmark v. Ink Technologies Printer Supplies, LLC, et al. (Southern District of Ohio)

Represented LD Products in a multi-patent, multi-product case regarding “clone” and “remanufactured” printer cartridges. The case settled on confidential terms.

Rovi v. Amazon (District of Delaware) and Rovi v. Hulu (Central District of California)

Represented Rovi in multi-patent matter involving consumer-electronic guide technologies. The matters settled on confidential terms.

Stambler v. Intuit (Eastern District of Texas)

Represented Union Bank in multi-patent case (and related indemnification claims) related to methods of encrypting and authenticating Internet communications. The case settled on confidential terms.    

TrendMicro v. Fortinet (Santa Clara Superior Court)

Represented Fortinet in a Lear challenge contesting validity and enforceability of two patents licensed from Trend Micro related to data security. The case settled on confidential terms.  

Genentech, Inc. v. Celltech, Inc. (Northern District of California)

Represented Genentech in interference proceeding regarding the rights to fundamental recombinant DNAtechnology. The matter was resolved by settlement, and Genentech was issued a patent.

Biotechnology Industry Arbitration (International Chamber of Commerce)

Defended large biotechnology company in confidential arbitration concerning recombinant human protein brought by pharmaceutical company seeking hundreds of millions of dollars for claims of misappropriated trade secrets and patent infringement under the laws of four different countries. The arbitral tribunal unanimously denied all trade secret and patent infringement claims.