Adam Lauridsen
Partner

alauridsen@keker.com
Tel. (415) 773-6686

Education

Harvard Law School, J.D., 2005

Cambridge University, M.Phil., 2002

Harvard University, B.A., magna cum laude, 2001

Clerkships

Hon. David F. Levi
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2006-2007

Hon. William W Schwarzer
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2005-2006

Bar Admissions

California

Adam Lauridsen

Adam Lauridsen’s practice focuses on complex commercial litigation, including intellectual property, antitrust, contract, gaming and sports-related disputes. Mr. Lauridsen has tried numerous civil and criminal cases in state and federal court, including more than a half dozen as lead counsel. His clients have included large corporations, executives of Fortune 500 companies and high-profile individuals. Mr. Lauridsen also maintains an active pro bono practice, with a focus on immigration and criminal justice issues.

Cases of Note

Al-Mowafak et al. v. Trump et al.: In partnership with the American Civil Liberties Union, Keker, Van Nest & Peters filed a class action lawsuit challenging President Donald J. Trump's executive order restricting immigration from several predominantly Muslim countries and suspending entry of refugees from all countries. In March 2017, we sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the order's enforcement. The suit alleges that the order is an unconstitutional attempt to discriminate against Muslims, and that the government's actions violate Article I of the Constitution, the First Amendment, the equal-protection and due process rights granted under the Fifth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Payne et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al.: Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Major League Baseball, the Commissioner, and the 30 Clubs demanding that our clients install protective netting from foul pole to foul pole at every Major League and Minor League ballpark. We moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a single claim for relief. The court granted our motion to dismiss.

EMC Corporation v. Pure Storage Inc.: We defended data storage innovator Pure Storage Inc. in multi-patent litigation filed by its Fortune 500 rival EMC Corporation in the District of Delaware. EMC’s asserted patents related to various data storage technologies, including technology for deduplicating data. We prevailed on two of the five patents in suit prior to trial, and obtained a jury verdict of non-infringement as two others following a seven-day jury trial. We then won partial judgment as a matter of law and a new trial on invalidity as to EMC’s one remaining asserted patent. Shortly following the court’s order granting a new trial, Pure Storage and EMC reached a global settlement.

San Jose, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball and Allan Huber “Bud” Selig: The city of San Jose sued our client, Major League Baseball, alleging antitrust violations and various state law claims related to the Oakland Athletics possible relocation to San Jose. The lawsuit claimed that Major League Baseball and its commissioner violated state and federal laws regarding unfair business practices and anticompetitive conduct. It also challenged the exemption to antitrust laws that the U.S. Supreme Court first upheld for Major League Baseball in 1922. We successfully moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ antitrust claims, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling, and we convinced the Supreme Court of the United States to decline a petition for certiorari.

High Point Sarl v. T-Mobile USA: On behalf of T-Mobile, we defeated High Point SARL's multi-patent infringement case in New Jersey federal court. Luxembourg-based High Point had claimed our client infringed four of its patents involving various aspects of digital cellular network technology, and sought significant damages. However, we obtained summary judgment based on patent exhaustion, and successfully defended that judgment in High Point's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Presentations

Moderator, "Recent Developments Regarding Induced Infringement, Damages and Injunctive Relief," Patent Disputes for Corporate Counsel Forum

Awards and Honors

  • Top 40 Lawyers Under 40, Daily Journal, 2017
  • Rising StarLaw360, 2016
  • Rising Star, Northern California Super Lawyers, 2015 and 2016
  • Member, Board of Student Advisers, Harvard Law School, 2003-2005
  • Editor, Harvard Civil Rights - Civil Liberties Law Review, 2003-2005
  • Research assistant for Professor Arthur Miller, Harvard Law School, 2003-2005
  • Ames Moot Court Semi-Finalist, Best Oralist, 2004
  • Phi Beta Kappa, Harvard University

Professional Affiliations

  • Mock Trial Coach, Bar Association of San Francisco

 

Payne et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al.: Plaintiffs filed a putative class action against Major League Baseball, the Commissioner, and the 30 Clubs demanding that our clients install protective netting from foul pole to foul pole at every Major League and Minor League ballpark. We moved to dismiss the case for lack of standing, lack of personal jurisdiction, improper venue, and failure to state a single claim for relief. The court granted our motion to dismiss.

Plaintiffs v. Sacramento Casino Royale: We successfully represented four residents of Sacramento County who sued a California card room for offering “Vegas style” games in violation of the California Constitution and Penal Code. On the eve of trial, the Bureau of Gambling Control instituted state-wide rule-making to address the issues raised by Plaintiffs’ complaint.

Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc. et al: We secured a favorable settlement for Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) in this groundbreaking antitrust and right of publicity class action. Current and former student-athletes claimed EA improperly used the athletes’ likenesses and biographical information in its NCAA Football and NCAA Basketball video games.

EMC Corporation v. Pure Storage Inc.: We defended data storage innovator Pure Storage Inc. in multi-patent litigation filed by its Fortune 500 rival EMC Corporation in the District of Delaware. EMC’s asserted patents related to various data storage technologies, including technology for deduplicating data. We prevailed on two of the five patents in suit prior to trial, and obtained a jury verdict of non-infringement as two others following a seven-day jury trial. We then won partial judgment as a matter of law and a new trial on invalidity as to EMC’s one remaining asserted patent. Shortly following the court’s order granting a new trial, Pure Storage and EMC reached a global settlement.

High Point Sarl v. T-Mobile USA: On behalf of T-Mobile, we defeated High Point SARL's multi-patent infringement case in New Jersey federal court. Luxembourg-based High Point had claimed our client infringed four of its patents involving various aspects of digital cellular network technology, and sought significant damages. However, we obtained summary judgment based on patent exhaustion, and successfully defended that judgment in High Point's appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Dillinger LLC v. Electronic Arts Inc.: We won summary judgment for Electronic Arts Inc in this right-of-publicity and trademark case. The heirs of John Dillinger alleged that EA improperly used the Dillinger name in a series of video games. Plaintiff sought damages and an injunction to prevent EA from selling the games. The court's orders not only affirmed EA's fundamental First Amendment right to design and publish its games, but also made clear that Indiana's right of publicity statute could not be applied retroactively to individuals who died before it was enacted. Law360 described the rulings as a "total victory" for EA.

Robin Antonick v. Electronic Arts Inc.: Robin Antonick, programmer of the John Madden Football video game for the Apple II that was released in 1988, alleged that EA owed him royalties on sales of all Madden Football video games over the last twenty-two years. Antonick claimed that all Madden games since 1990 are derivative works of the game he programmed, and he was therefore owed royalties under a 1986 contract with EA. On behalf of EA, we contended that none of Antonick’s source code, which was written for a more primitive platform and was outdated by the time it was released, was ever used in any subsequent Madden game. Although the jury found in favor of Antonik, U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer later entered judgment for EA, reversing the award and strongly discouraging similar suits based on additional versions of the game. Judge Breyer's ruling was affirmed on appeal.

Wyckoff v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al.: At the pleading stage, we successfully defeated a putative class action filed against Major League Baseball, its current and former Commissioners, and all 30 Baseball Clubs. The plaintiffs, two former baseball scouts, claimed that defendants had violated federal and state antitrust law by allegedly conspiring to decrease competition in the labor market for scouts. By convincing the court that the employment of baseball scouts falls within the scope of Baseball’s antitrust exemption, we successfully obtained a complete dismissal.

Miranda et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball et al.: We successfully defended Major League Baseball (MLB), its Commissioner and 30 Baseball Clubs from a putative class action. The plaintiffs, former minor league players, alleged that minor league baseball’s labor system violates federal antitrust law. We convinced the court to dismiss the complaint because Baseball’s antitrust exemption bars plaintiffs’ claims.

San Jose, et al. v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball and Allan Huber “Bud” Selig: The city of San Jose sued our client, Major League Baseball, alleging antitrust violations and various state law claims related to the Oakland Athletics possible relocation to San Jose. The lawsuit claimed that Major League Baseball and its commissioner violated state and federal laws regarding unfair business practices and anticompetitive conduct. It also challenged the exemption to antitrust laws that the U.S. Supreme Court first upheld for Major League Baseball in 1922. We successfully moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ antitrust claims, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling, and we convinced the Supreme Court of the United States to decline a petition for certiorari.

Al-Mowafak et al. v. Trump et al.: In partnership with the American Civil Liberties Union, Keker, Van Nest & Peters filed a class action lawsuit challenging President Donald J. Trump's executive order restricting immigration from several predominantly Muslim countries and suspending entry of refugees from all countries. In March 2017, we sought a preliminary injunction enjoining the order's enforcement. The suit alleges that the order is an unconstitutional attempt to discriminate against Muslims, and that the government's actions violate Article I of the Constitution, the First Amendment, the equal-protection and due process rights granted under the Fifth Amendment and the Immigration and Nationality Act.

Henderson v. Petersen et al: We represented a prisoner in a civil rights suit against three correctional officers who beat him in Pelican Bay State Prison and one officer who failed to intervene to stop the beating. After the plaintiff's case survived summary judgment, the federal court asked us to step in and represent him at trial. Following a five-day trial and five hours of jury deliberation, the defendants settled the case for nearly twice the number the plaintiff presented to the jury.

Developed by Tenrec