Daniel Justice

Senior Associate

San Francisco

Daniel Justice works on matters involving artificial intelligence, trademark functionality, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, patent infringement, contract disputes and proceedings before the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board.

These matters involved issues such as government contractor immunity to patent infringement; the effect of amendments to a patent licensing agreement; the effect of an expired utility patent for a chemical composition on the validity of a related trademark for medical implants; the copyrightability of short phrases and the merger doctrine; the copyrightability and fair use of religious materials; and multiple oppositions to office actions, and petitions to cancel trademark registrations to the Trademark Trial & Appeal Board.

Daniel has also worked on Internet-related matters involving the legal effect of “browsewrap” agreements; violations of Web page terms of use; the circumvention of technological barriers to access Web pages; violations of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act; copyright issues related to cache copying of Web pages; the use of “spiders” to collect data from Web pages; the legality of “deep-linking” to web pages; and the legality of search engine aggregation and display of copyrighted Web pages.

Daniel has recently co-authored a scholarly article with Warrington S. Parker III entitled, "The Differing Approaches to Preemption Under the Uniform Trade Secrets Act" that was published in Volume 49, Issue 2 of the Tort Trial & Insurance Practice Law Journal. Daniel is also a contributing author to the NorCal IP Blog, which covers notable new intellectual property case filings and verdicts in the Northern District of California. Links to articles Daniel has authored can be found under the "Publications" section of this bio.

  • During law school, Daniel was Vice President of OUTLaw, the LGBT legal organization at USC Law School, and was a member of the Interdisciplinary Law Journal. Prior to law school, Daniel was a research assistant in the Laboratory for Computational Cognitive Neuroscience at UC Santa Barbara, where he studied the neuropsychological theory of multiple category learning systems called COVIS (Competition between verbal and implicit systems) and ran study participants through neuroimaging experiments using fMRI.
    • C5 Medical Werks/CoorsTek Medical v. CeramTec GmbH. (D. Col.). Successfully represented C5/Coorstek in a lawsuit at the intersection of trademark and patent law. When manufacturer CeramTec tried to block CoorsTek Medical from using the color pink for its ceramic hip replacement products, we rose to CoorsTek’s defense. Claiming trade dress rights in the color pink, a byproduct of the chromium oxide used in CoorsTek’s manufacturing process, CeramTec sued C5 in France and Germany and threatened to file actions in other jurisdictions including the United States. Rather than wait until CeramTec filed its lawsuit in the United States, C5 took the offensive and filed for declaratory judgment of non-infringement in Federal District Court in Denver. Following a 13-day bench trial in district court, the team won CoorsTek the right to make, offer and sell its pink ceramic hip components in the United States. Moreover, this precedential ruling confirmed that a color that is the natural result of a functional attribute described in an expired patent cannot serve as trade dress.
    • hiQ Labs, Inc. v. Linkedin Corp. (N.D. Cal.). Successfully represented LinkedIn and scored a turnaround victory against hiQ in its data scraping case, getting an earlier preliminary injunction dissolved, and all of hiQ’s remaining claims (California Unfair Competition, Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, intentional interference with contract, and intentional interference with prospective economic advantage) dismissed on summary judgment. The Court also ruled on summary judgment that LinkedIn’s User Agreement is clear and enforceable and was breached by hiQ.
    • 3taps v. Linkedin Corp. (N.D. Cal.). Successfully represented LinkedIn in an action brought by 3taps regarding the legality of data scraping and asserting claims pursuant to the CFAA, California Comprehensive Computer Data Access and Fraud Act, breach of contract, and trespass to chattels. Won several motions to dismiss and ultimately obtained a dismissal.
    • Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Amazon, Inc. (N.D. Cal.). Successfully represented Williams-Sonoma (WSI) in a highly contentious battle against Amazon for multiple IP infringement claims including design patent and trademark infringement, dilution, false advertising and unfair competition relating to Amazon’s knockoff of WSI’s West Elm furniture designs; its misleading use of the registered WILLIAMS SONOMA service mark; and for copyright infringement in connection with Amazon’s selection and publication of WSI’s copyrighted product photos.
    • The State of Oregon v. Oracle (D. Or.). Successfully represented Oracle and several individual defendants in litigation involving the State of Oregon’s health insurance exchange. Oregon had hired Oracle to assist in developing technology for the State’s health insurance exchange and, after several bureaucratic setbacks, the Governor canceled the project. We represented Oracle in several federal and state lawsuits against the State of Oregon. On behalf of Oracle, we sued the State for copyright infringement and breach of contract in federal court. The State filed two separate lawsuits in state court, seeking an injunction and more than $6 billion in damages on claims ranging from fraud to racketeering. The litigation involved constitutional questions concerning the Copyright Remedies Clarification Act and 11th Amendment immunity, as well as complex state-federal preemption issues. Several other lawsuits between the parties ensued. To resolve this difficult dispute and often contentious litigation lasting more than two years, we crafted an aggressive, multi-faceted litigation strategy. That strategy resulted in a favorable settlement that resolved all pending litigation. Instead of the requested $6 billion, the settlement package included free software licenses for the State, Oracle’s contribution of $10M to an Oracle-branded STEM educational initiative, and payment of $25M, representing a portion of the State’s attorneys’ fees incurred.
    • Femto-Sec Tech, Inc. v. Alcon Labs, Inc. (C.D. Cal.). Successfully represented Lawrence Livermore National Security in several cases involving patent infringement, breach of contract, and fraud claims regarding femtosecond laser technology for ophthalmic surgery procedures. Defeated early Alice motion and prevailed on motion to dismiss against licensee.
    • Nuheara v. Anker (D. Wash.).  Successfully represented Anker in a lawsuit regarding alleged trademark infringement and unfair competition related to the use of trademarks for headphone technology. Obtained a favorable settlement.