Stuart’s practice focuses on business and intellectual property litigation, including patent, copyright and trademark infringement, unfair competition, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and business torts.

Stuart initially practiced as an attorney in South Africa, becoming a partner in a major Durban firm. In 1986 he moved to California, and joined the Palo Alto office of a national law firm. In 1993 Stuart joined a startup Palo Alto law firm – which ended up with more than thirty attorneys and patent agents – as one of its earliest partners. He remained with that firm until the end of 2016.

Stuart has litigated patent infringement cases involving a variety of arts and processes, including data compression techniques, medical device design, electronic circuitry, and semiconductor processes and products. In addition to patent cases, he has litigated several cases in the areas of copyright, trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breaches of license and other agreements, Internet issues and unfair competition.

Stuart has tried jury and bench trials and argued appeals in both federal and state courts. Stuart’s practice includes mediation and arbitration. He served for many years as a judicial arbitrator, mediator, and settlement judge pro tem of the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

Selection of Representative Cases

*          Represents plaintiff Hitachi Vantara Corporation in an action for reformation of contract and reimbursement of overpayments: Hitachi Vantara Corporation v. Seven10 Storage Software LLC, Case No. 5:18-CV-000864 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California).

*          Represents defendants and cross complainant Outreach & Escort in an action with claims and cross claims for breach of contract, fraud, tortious interference with contract, and conversion: Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority v. Outreach & Escort, Case No. 16 CV 299209 (Santa Clara County Superior Court).

*          Represented claimant Baysand, Inc. in seeking royalties under a license agreement in the International Court of Arbitration of the International Chamber of Commerce (the “ICC”): Baysand, Inc. v. Toshiba Corporation, ICC Case No. 21103/CYK: Settled on confidential terms after mediation in Tokyo.

*          Represented plaintiff Baysand, Inc. in patent infringement action related to ICC arbitration proceedings:  Baysand, Inc. v. Toshiba Corporation, Case No. 5:15-cv-02425 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California): Settled on confidential terms after mediation in Tokyo.

*          Represented defendant Princess Cruise lines in defending an action for patent infringement relating to business methods: Phoenix Licensing v. Carnival Corporation and Princess Cruise Lines,Case. No. 2:13-CV-1084 (U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas): Settled on confidential terms after Markman hearing ruling.

*          Represented minority shareholders in writ petition proceedings to force corporation to make disclosures of financial and other corporate information under California Corporations Code. After a bench trial, the corporation was ordered to make the requested disclosures, and clients were awarded their attorney’s fees and costs of compelling the corporation to comply with its statutory disclosure requirements: Carver v. Laboratory Skin Care, Case No. CV 4722229 (San Mateo County Superior Court).

*          Represented claimant Perez in arbitration proceedings against a venture capital firm for payment of the purchase consideration for shares, obtaining high six-figure award: Perez v. Gilo Venture (American Arbitration Association, San Jose).

*          Represented plaintiff pharmaceutical company Corcept, Inc. in action for defamation based on a series of anonymous statements defamatory of Corcept posted on a Yahoo Message Board: Corcept Therapeutics, Inc. v. Rothschild, Case. No. 5:07-cv-03795 JW.  The case settled on confidential terms after the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals sustained the trial court’s denial of defendant’s Anti-SLAPP motion: Corcept v. Rothschild, Case No. 5:07-CV-03795, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California; Case No. 08-15967, Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

*          Represented defendant NetInformer and its directors in this fraud and rescission action by an investor who, after paying part of the purchase price for a membership interest, refused to pay the balance of the investment, purported to rescind the subscription agreement, and sued for the return of what he had paid. The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of NetInformer and its directors on the fraud and rescission action, and awarded judgment on the cross complaint for payment of the balance of the promised investment in the high six figures: Schafer v. NetInformer, LLC (Santa Clara County Superior Court).

 

Selected Reported Cases

Carol Gilbert, Inc. v. Haller, 179 Cal.App.4^th 852 (6^th District Court of Appeals).

Corcept v. Rothschild, 2009 WL 2420066 (9^th Circuit Court of Appeals).

Display Research Labs., Inc. v. Telegen Corp., 133 F.Supp. 2d, 1170 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California).

Holtz v. Conexant Systems, Inc., Appeal Fed. Appx. 470, 2002 WL 31875667 (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit).

PeopleSoft U.S.A. v. Softeck, Inc., 227 F.2d F.Supp. 2d 1116 (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California).