Whether he’s representing major corporations in complex civil litigation, or fighting for an individual’s freedom, Mr. Tassin leverages a deep understanding of the details without losing sight of the big picture. Since joining Keker, Van Nest & Peters in the fall of 2013, Mr. Tassin has represented a variety of individuals and businesses in high-stakes litigation at both the trial and appellate levels, including disputes involving securities, breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, intellectual property, professional negligence, and the ever-changing landscape of medical marijuana. In each case, Mr. Tassin has guided his clients through uncharted legal territory and, where necessary, developed creative approaches to draw the boundaries in their favor.
Mr. Tassin also maintains an active pro bono practice, working alongside the Electronic Frontier Foundation to challenge the National Security Agency’s warrantless surveillance of Internet users, writing an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage requirement, and writing an amicus brief in support of a challenge to the VA’s discriminatory ban on surgical care for transgender veterans.
Fulcher v. Secretary of Veterans Affairs
Representing a diverse group of cities, counties, and major businesses across the nation—including San Francisco, New York, Santa Clara County, American Airlines, and Viacom—we filed an amicus curiae brief with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, asking the court to compel the Department of Veterans Affairs to repeal its blanket ban on surgical care for transgender veterans, which unconstitutionally denies those who have bravely served our country medically necessary care simply because they are transgender.
Plaintiffs v. National Security Agency
Working alongside the Electronic Frontier Foundation, we represent AT&T customers pro bono in their suit challenging the U.S. government’s warrantless surveillance of electronic communications. Our clients assert that this surveillance violates their constitutional rights and various statutes designed to limit executive power. Following an appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, the case is currently in discovery before the district court.
Ziptronix v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company
We won summary judgment of non-infringement for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and its subsidiary TSMC, North America in a long-running patent lawsuit brought by North Carolina semiconductor company, Ziptronix, Inc. Ziptronix had asserted nine patents and more than 500 patent claims directed to TSMC’s manufacturing of semiconductors for use in backside-illumination image sensors used predominantly in smartphone cameras. On behalf of TSMC, we defeated Ziptronix’s claims by arguing that the territorial limits of U.S. patent law prohibited reaching TSMC’s business transactions and manufacturing operations in Taiwan.
Shareholders v. Technology Company
We represent a cutting-edge medical technology company in a putative class-action lawsuit claiming that the company’s executives made various false and misleading statements regarding the company’s financial health and the safety of the company’s product. We also represent the same company in various real and threatened shareholder derivative lawsuits concerning the same subject matter.
Software Rights Archive v. LinkedIn and Twitter
After a non-practicing entity brought a patent-infringement lawsuit against our clients, we took advantage of the newly establish inter partes review procedure to invalidate 23 claims before the Patent & Trademark Office. On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, we successfully defended the PTO’s decision to invalidate those claims. We also brought a successful cross-appeal, convincing the Federal Circuit to reverse the PTO’s decision not to invalidate a few remaining claims, securing a total victory for our clients.
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.
Zubik et al. v. Burwell
On behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, we submitted an amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court in support of the U.S. Government in Zubik et al. v. Burwell, the challenge to the Affordable Care Act’s contraception coverage requirement.
April 26, 2019
On April 26 District Court Judge Edward Chen granted a statewide preliminary injunction in Essential Access Health v. Azar, et al., a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s sweeping changes to the federal Title X family planning program. Read more
March 22, 2019
Representing Essential Access Health and Dr. Melissa Marshall, Keker, Van Nest & Peters filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent the Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing sweeping changes to the Title X Family Planning Program. Read more
March 04, 2019
Following the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services’ finalization of sweeping changes to the Title X Family Planning Program, Keker, Van Nest & Peters has filed a lawsuit on behalf of Essential Access Health and Dr. Melissa Marshall, a family medicine doctor practicing at a Title X-funded health center in Yolo County, California. Read more
July 11, 2017
Keker, Van Nest & Peters has filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to order the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to end its ban on providing surgery for trans veterans. Read more
Keker & Van Nest defeat a proposed class action accusing Major League Baseball of failing to protect spectators at ballparks with safety netting. Read more
KVN submitted a brief to the Supreme Court on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics, which argued that the Supreme Court should not allow religious objectors to obstruct third parties from obtaining medication and treatments that their doctors have prescribed. Read more
Ziptronix had asserted nine patents and more than 500 claims over TSMC’s manufacturing of semiconductors. Read more
Keker & Van Nest filed a brief in the Jewel v. NSA case claiming that backbone surveillance violates the 4th Amendment at the time of seizure and at the time of the search for selectors. Read more
- Why Treaties Can Abrogate State Sovereign Immunity: Applying Central Virginia Community College v. Katz to the Treaty Power, 101 Calif. L. Rev. 755 (2013).