From 1994 through 1998, Mr. Gilliland was managing partner of Townsend, in 2000 was head of Townsend’s Litigation Group and from October 2001 through March 2010 served as Chairman of the firm. Throughout this period Mr. Gilliland also maintained an active trial practice. He has specialized in the handling of intellectual property and complex commercial litigation since 1980. His practice has focused extensively on the representation of high-technology companies in litigation regarding claims based upon patent, copyright and trademark infringement, breach of contract, breach of warranty, fraud, unfair competition and violation of the antitrust laws. He has appeared in federal and state trial and appellate courts around the United States.
As lead trial counsel for a medical device company, Mr. Gilliland won a unanimous verdict in a patent license dispute after a seven week jury trial. As appellate counsel he obtained reversal of a nine-figure patent infringement verdict for an international microprocessor company. For a leading computer hardware and software manufacturer, Mr. Gilliland obtained summary judgment of copyright infringement and a permanent injunction halting a competitor’s infringing sales. As lead counsel for a multinational computer service company, he won a unanimous defense verdict in a six week antitrust jury trial. For the same client, as co-lead counsel, he won a unanimous ruling from three arbitrators denying the $1 billion claim of an Internet company after a month long arbitration.
Mr. Gilliland also serves as a mediator in the Northern District of California’s Alternative Dispute Resolution program. He has handled more than forty mediations either as mediator or counsel for one of the parties.
Select Published Decisions
- PowerAgent, Inc. v. Electronic Data Systems Corporation, 358 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 2004); American Arbitration Association (2002). Mr. Gilliland successfully defeated a $1 billion clam of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty and violation of the federal Racketeering Influenced Corrupt Organizations (“RICO”) Act, asserted by a failed Internet company.
- Sony Computer Entertainment America, Inc. v. Bleem, LLC, 214 F.3d 1022 (9th Cir. 2000). This copyright infringement action addressed novel issues regarding the use of copyrighted screen shots in comparative advertising.
- Sony Computer Entertainment, Inc. v. Connectix Corp., 203 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2000); 53 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1705 (N.D. Cal. 2000). This copyright infringement action addressed important issues regarding the use of copyrighted software in the process of “reverse engineering.”
- USS Posco Industries v. Contra Costa County Building & Construction Trades Council, 31 F.3d 800 (9th Cir. 1994); 1990-2 Trade Case (CCH) 69,095 (N.D. Cal. 1990). This antitrust action addressed novel issues concerning the applicability of the antitrust laws to unions that file environmental challenges to construction projects as a way of preventing the project owners from using non-union labor. The Ninth Circuit held that such conduct can violate the antitrust laws, but in this specific case no violation had occurred.
- Boone v. Redevelopment Agency of the City of San Jose, 841 F.2d 886 (9th Cir. 1987) cert. denied, 488 U.S. 965, 109 S.Ct. 489 (1987). Mr. Gilliland represented the San Jose Redevelopment Agency in antitrust litigation filed by the developer of a commercial office building in San Jose. Dismissal of the case by the trial court was affirmed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
- Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., 586 F.Supp. 2d 1190 (N.D. Cal. 2008) and Apple Inc. v. Psystar Corp., ____F.Supp. 2d ____, 2009 WL 3112080 (N.D. Cal. 2009). Mr. Gilliland obtained summary judgment and a permanent injunction against another computer company based upon copyright infringement and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act.
- TriCom, Inc. v. Electronic Data Systems Corp., 902 F.Supp. 741, 36 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1778 (E.D. Mich. 1995). In this antitrust action Mr. Gilliland defended claims that EDS had unlawfully “tied” together the sale of computer software used to design cars for General Motors to the use of EDS’ computer hardware. After a seven-week jury trial in federal court in Detroit, the jury ruled unanimously in favor of EDS, finding that no violation had occurred.
- Grid Systems Corp. v. Texas Instruments, Inc., 771 F.Supp. 1033, 20 U.S.P.Q. 2d 1207 (N.D. Cal. 1991). This patent infringement and antitrust action challenged the validity and enforceability of fundamental patents held by Texas Instruments on the single chip microprocessor. Also challenged was TI’s practice of forcing a package license of all its patents on potential infringers. Mr. Gilliland was one of the lead attorneys for plaintiff; a confidential settlement was achieved on the eve of trial.
Publications and Speaking Engagements
”Love, Art, Science & Law,” Inside the Minds: Firm Leadership, Aspatore Books (2003).
"Federal Appeals Court Expands Fair Use Copying of Software," Washington Legal Foundation, July 28, 2000.
“Alternative IP Resolution.” The Recorder (1996).