Thomas Lombardi and Dan Robinson, Intellectual Property Rights in Real Property: How to Avoid Paying Millions to Graffiti Artists, Real Prop. L. J. (Vol. 37, Issue 2, 2019).
Continuing Legal Education course offered by the California Bar Association: Intellectual Property Rights in Real Property: How to Avoid Paying Millions to Graffiti Artists, March 21, 2019.
Dan Robinson, Court of Appeal Further Limits Landlords' Defenses Against Fraud in Leasing, Cal. Lawyers' Association Real Prop. L. News (July, 2019).
Dan Robinson, Fighting for My Son, California Lawyer Magazine (August 2013)
E. Daniel Robinson, Note, Embracing Equity: A New Remedy for Wrongful Health Insurance Denials, 90 Minn. L. Rev. 1447 (2006)
“50 Lawyers on the Fast Track,” The Recorder, 2013
Burton Award for Legal Writing, 2007
Law Clerk, Hon. Virginia A. Phillips, U.S. District Court, Central District of California, 2007-2008
Law Clerk, Minnesota Disability Law Center and Center for Education Law, 2005
Westwood Center v. Waterproofing Professionals
Successfully represented the owner of multiple shopping centers in the Los Angeles area in an arbitration against a contractor who applied faulty waterproofing to the shopping center's parking garage. Obtained all damages sought and a full award of attorneys' fees. (2018)
Anchorage v. M.P., Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals
Drafted the Amicus brief on behalf of the Council for Parent Attorneys and Advocates in this ground-breaking special education case. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals adopted Dan's reasoning in a published opinion that established that a school district cannot refuse to implement updated individualized education plans on the basis that parents are "litigious" or difficult.
Special Education Cases on Behalf of Students
Dan has successfully represented children in special education disputes. Among other forms of relief, his cases have resulted in:
obtaining special education when the school had refused it;
obtaining physical therapy, behavioral therapy, occupational therapy, and one-on-one aides for children;
moving children from restrictive or inappropriate placements into more integrated placements designed to set them up for success;
obtaining compensatory education and funds for students and parents to provide for tutoring, private therapy, future living and educational expenses, and for compensation for distress schools caused to parents and their children.
Driver v. Rumba Room and consolidated cases
Successfully represented the owner of a mall located in Anaheim, California in a collection of related lawsuits involving claims of construction defects, breaches of contract, fraud, and numerous other claims between fifteen parties represented by eleven law firms. (2018)
Dicon v. Preciseley
Represented a manufacturer of MEMS fiber optic components asserting its patent in the Northern District of California. (2015)
FastVDO v. Microsoft and 511 Innovations v. Microsoft
Represented Microsoft defending these two patent lawsuits in the Eastern District of Texas, the first involving wireless phone voice codecs and the second involving optical sensors. (2015)
Verasonics v. Alpinion
Successfully represented a manufacturer of ultrasound research systems asserting claims for trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract in an international arbitration. (2015)
Ariba v. Coupa and E-Lynxx v. Ariba
Represented Ariba in these patent litigations in the Northern District of California and the Middle District of Pennsylvania, respectively. (2014 and 2013)
Certain Silicon Microphone Packages and Products Containing Same
Represented Complainant Knowles Electronics in this ITC investigation involving its patents on MEMS microphones. USITC Inv. No. 337-TA-888 (2014)
In re Certain Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities, Inv.
Represented Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. in a proceeding brought by Inter Digital against Huawei, LG, Nokia and ZTE, seeking to preclude importation of cell phones, datapads, and other 3G devices into the US. Dan's cross-examination of the complainant’s expert was cited in the decision in favor of Dan's client. (2013)
Apple v. Motorola
Represented a leading smartphone maker in a patent infringement dispute in the Northern District of Illinois, briefing the motions that led to Judge Posner’s groundbreaking decision on patent damages. (N.D. Ill. 2012)
DownUnder Wireless LLC v. Samsung Elec. Co. et al.
Represented Samsung in this patent litigation involving wireless communication devices. Drafted the winning summary judgment dismissing all claims in favor of Samsung. (E.D. Tex. 2012)
Weyer et al. v. MySpace et al. (C.D. Cal.) and EveryMD v. Goldman Sachs et al.
Represented MySpace, Goldman Sachs, and a global financial institution in these patent litigations involving web pages, obtaining dismissal of both cases before commencement of discovery. (C.D. Cal. 2011 and 2012)
Patent ownership and licensing advice
Counseled a major software publisher regarding options for corporate restructuring and mergers with respect to patent and copyright licensing and ownership. Has counseled small businesses and startups regarding ownership and consolidation of IP and avoiding infringement of IP, and has drafted a founder contribution agreement contributing IP to a startup prior to a round of funding.
Confidential international arbitration
Represented a major telecommunications company in international arbitration to establish a royalty rate for a major portfolio of standards-essential and non-essential wireless patents, including examining and cross-examining key expert witnesses during the hearing. (2015)
Finisar Corporation v. Source Photonics, Inc. et al.
Represented Source Photonics in this patent lawsuit involving fiber optic components used in telecommunication systems and data communication networks. (N.D. Cal. 2010)
O2 Micro v. Beyond Innovation (BiTEK)
Represented BiTEK in this patent infringement case involving electronic circuitry. (E.D. Tex. 2009)
Saxon Innovations Corp. v. Nokia, et al.
Represented Samsung in this patent infringement case involving electronic circuitry. Successfully obtained dismissal of one asserted patent on summary judgment and the removal of another patent from contention. (E.D. Tex. 2009)
Valentine et al. v. Nebuad, Inc. et al.
Represented defendant Cable One against privacy-related claims in this class action. Prevailed on a motion to dismiss the claims against Cable One. (N.D. Cal. 2009)