David M. Goldstein

Partner
Antitrust & Competition

David Goldstein, a partner in Orrick’s San Francisco office, is a member of the Litigation Group.

Mr. Goldstein has represented clients in demanding and complex commercial litigation matters for more than 20 years. For the past 15 years, his practice has focused on antitrust and trade regulation engagements involving cartels, monopolization, the antitrust/IP interface, standards essential patents and standards-setting activities, and other areas of antitrust law. He often is called upon to provide guidance to clients on antitrust issues involving pricing and distribution, vertical agreements, trade association activities, and antitrust issues that arise in licensing agreements. He has litigated cases and counseled clients in a broad range of industries, including electronic devices and components, pharmaceuticals, clothing, musical instruments, payment cards, credit reports/identity theft, DSL technology, LED lighting, motor oil, and medical devices. Mr. Goldstein was recommended in The Legal 500 in 2011 for the United States in Antitrust, and he has been named a Northern California Super Lawyer in Antitrust every year since 2006. He is the editor-in-chief of Orrick’s bi-monthly Antitrust and Competition Newsletter.

In addition to antitrust matters, Mr. Goldstein has represented clients in cases involving the Unfair Competition Law, the Fair Credit Reporting Act, the Lanham Act, the False Claims Act, investment management services, insurance coverage, real estate and other business disputes. He also has represented clients in matters involving the First Amendment.

The following is a sample of his notable cases.

  • In re TFT-LCD Antitrust Litigation. Representing Sony as a plaintiff pursuing antitrust claims based on its purchases of price-fixed TFT-LCD panels.
  • Merck v. Teva. Defended Merck against Section 2 antitrust counterclaims in a Hatch-Waxman case involving cholesterol drugs.
  • Clayworth v. Pfizer. Advised Merck with respect to California Supreme Court proceedings in price-fixing case.
  • ConsumerInfo (Experian) v. One Technologies. Represented One Technologies in asserting Section 2 antitrust counterclaims in a trademark infringement case involving Google AdWords.
  • Rambus, Inc. v. Nvidia Corporation. Represented Nvidia in its assertion of antitrust claims and patent misuse defenses against Rambus based on Rambus's standard-setting activities and licensing program relating to memory controllers and DRAM memory.
  • In re Static Random Access Memory (SRAM) Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1819. Represented Sony in connection with direct and indirect purchaser class actions alleging price-fixing with respect to SRAM chips.
  • GlobespanVirata, Inc. v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 2006 WL 543155 (D.N.J., Mar. 3, 2006). Represented Texas Instruments in action asserting Section 1 and Section 2 claims based on standard setting for ADSL technology.
  • In re Visa Check/MasterMoney Antitrust Litigation.  Represented Visa, and was a member of the trial team, in a purported US$100 billion class action brought by Wal-Mart and other merchants asserting that Visa’s Honor All Cards rule for merchant acceptance of Visa-branded credit and debit cards constituted unlawful tying and attempted monopolization under the Sherman Act.
  • Southard v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. (Iowa 2007); Kanne v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. (Neb. 2006); Bennett v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. (Tenn. Ct. App. 2006); Ho v. Visa U.S.A. Inc. (N.Y. App. Div. 2005). Represented Visa in approximately 40 purported indirect purchaser class actions asserting state antitrust, consumer protection and common law claims in follow-on cases to In re Visa Check.
  • United States v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., et al. Represented Visa in defending against MasterCard’s challenge to Visa’s rule imposing a fee on financial institutions to fund the settlement in In re Visa Check.
  • Oil Changer, Inc. v. Pennzoil-Quaker State. Represented Pennzoil-Quaker State in Oil Changer’s Clayton Act challenge to the merger of Pennzoil and Quaker State.
  • Thoratec/Thermo Cardiosystems. Represented Thoratec, a manufacturer of cardiac assist devices, in its Hart-Scott-Rodino proceedings before the FTC in connection with its merger with Thermo Cardiosystems.
  • Barrus v. Sylvania, 55 F.3d 468 (9th Cir. 1995). Represented Sylvania in an action asserting false advertising claims under the Lanham Act.
  • Sahadi v. Seagate Technology. Represented Sahadi in a three-week arbitration to determine the fair market rent for a property in Silicon Valley.
  • State ex rel. Stull v. Bank of America. Represented Bank of America in an action asserting False Claims Act and unfair business practices arising from the bank’s administration of trust accounts.
  • Govett American Endeavor Fund v. Berkeley International Capital Corporation. Represented Berkeley, an investment manager, in international litigation concerning its management of investment funds.
  • Browning-Ferris Industries of California v. City of San Jose. Represented Browning-Ferris Industries in litigation over contracts to provide waste disposal services in San Jose.
  • In re American Continental Corporation/Lincoln Savings & Loan Securities Litigation. Represented Arthur Young & Co. in securities and accountant liability lawsuits stemming from the failure of Lincoln Savings & Loan.
  • Anti-Defamation League of B’nai B’rith, et al. v. Superior Court, 67 Cal. App. 4th 1072 (1998). Represented the Anti-Defamation League in litigation under California’s Information Practices Act.

Mr. Goldstein has been active in the Bar Association of San Francisco for many years. He is on the executive committee and served as the Vice Chair of the Antitrust Section in 2010-2011; he was the 2009 Chair of the Litigation Section, and he has served on the Litigation Section’s Executive Committee since 2004; from 1999-2002 he served on the Editorial Board of San Francisco Attorney Magazine; and from 1998-1999 he was the Editor of the Barrister’s Club Law Journal.

Prior to joining Orrick, Mr. Goldstein was a shareholder at Heller Ehrman LLP, where he served as a Co-Chair of the San Francisco Litigation Department and on the San Francisco Management Committee.

David Goldstein
Speeches
  • “How to Prepare a Deponent and Defend a Deposition,” Bar Association of San Francisco, May 30, 2013
  • “A View From the Trenches in Today’s Complex Antitrust Cases,” Bar Association of San Francisco, Nov. 29, 2012
  • “Licensing and Antitrust,” UC Davis Law School, Feb. 23, 2012
  • “The Role of Antitrust in Analyzing Patent Misuse,” Antitrust Issues for Silicon Valley Companies, July 28, 2010
  • “Current Trends and Issues in Antitrust,” The Rock Center for Corporate Governance, Stanford Law School, Jan. 15, 2010
  • “Section 17200 Update After In re Tobacco II Cases,” Bar Association of San Francisco, Aug. 5, 2009 (moderator)
  • “Tips from In-House Counsel,” Bar Association of San Francisco, Feb. 13, 2009 (moderator)
  • “Preparing for and Defending Depositions,” Bar Association of San Francisco, Feb. 11, 2009
  • “Antitrust Issues in Licensing Intellectual Property,” Licensing Executives Society, San Diego, March 18, 2008
  • “Current Antitrust Issues in Standard Setting and Licensing,” Stanford University, Jan. 9, 2008
  • “Preparing For and Taking Depositions,” Bar Association of San Francisco, Oct. 11, 2007
  • “Preparing For and Defending Depositions,” Bar Association of San Francisco, Sept. 19, 2007
  • “Section 17200 After the Supreme Court’s Prop 64 Rulings in Mervyn’s and Branick,” Bar Association of San Francisco, Sept. 20, 2006 (moderator)
  • “Rule 30(b)(6): The Litigator’s Friend or Enemy?,” Bar Association of San Francisco, July 27, 2006
Admitted In
  • California

Education
  • J.D., Yale Law School, 1989
  • Executive Editor, Yale Journal on Regulation, Yale Law School
  • B.A., with high distinction, University of Michigan, 1983
Honors
  • Northern California Super Lawyer - Antitrust, 2006-2014
  • Recommended by The Legal 500 U.S., Antitrust, 2011
Memberships
  • State Bar of California
  • Bar Association of San Francisco
  • American Bar Association

Please do not include any confidential, secret or otherwise sensitive information concerning any potential or actual legal matter in this e-mail message. Unsolicited e-mails do not create an attorney-client relationship and confidential or secret information included in such e-mails cannot be protected from disclosure. Orrick does not have a duty or a legal obligation to keep confidential any information that you provide to us. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

By clicking "OK" below, you understand and agree that Orrick will have no duty to keep confidential any information you provide.

OK
Cancel