Now more than ever, technology is influencing the way we do business, communicate, move through and around the world, access and manage our homes, receive and administer healthcare, make purchases, secure information, and protect our most valuable property. Morrison Foerster keeps pace with this rapidly evolving landscape across our internationally recognized corporate, finance, intellectual property, and litigation practices. MoFo Tech brings together our insights relating to fields such as blockchain and distributed ledger, cloud and as-a-service technologies, driverless cars, drones, fintech, computer hardware and software, the Internet of Things, semiconductors, and telecommunications. The MoFo Tech blog offers real-time, in-depth analyses of the trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry.<h2>ABOUT MORRISON FOERSTER</h2>Morrison Foerster is a leading global law firm that transforms complexity into advantage for its clients. Our clients include some of the largest financial institutions, banks, consulting and accounting firms, and Fortune 100, technology, and life sciences companies. Highlighting the firm’s commitment to client service, leadership in market-changing deals and impact litigation, and values-based culture, Morrison Foerster has been repeatedly recognized as one of the top 10 firms on The American Lawyer’s A-List. Year after year, the firm receives significant recognition from Chambers and The Legal 500 across their various guides, including Global, USA, Asia‑Pacific, Europe, UK, Latin America, and FinTech Legal. Our lawyers passionately care about delivering legal excellence while living our values. Morrison Foerster has a long-standing commitment to creating a culture that respects and celebrates differences, while providing an inclusive environment. The firm has achieved Mansfield Certification Plus since 2018 as a result of successfully reaching at least 30 percent women, communities of color, and LGBTQ+ lawyer representation in a notable number of current leadership roles and committees. The firm also has a long history of commitment to the community and society through providing pro bono legal services, including litigating for civil rights and civil liberties, improving public education and fostering the wellbeing of children, advocating for veterans, promoting international human rights, enforcing the right to asylum, and safeguarding the environment.

Social

Search

testimage.jpg

MoFo Tech

Scott Llewellyn’s practice focuses on complex litigation in federal and state courts around the country, with an emphasis on patent and trade secret disputes. Over the past decade, he has worked on some of the most significant, high–profile IP cases involving technology for televisions, smartphones, and self–driving cars, relying on 40 years of experience with computer hardware and software. Scott also has significant experience with business divorce cases before courts and arbitrators, involving a mix of trade secret, patent, tort, and contract claims relating to technology development and implementation.Scott also has successfully tried general commercial arbitration and agency matters, briefed and argued various appeals in federal appellate court, and tried more than 20 cases for the Denver City Attorney’s office, most of them jury trials.Scott also has an active pro bono practice, having worked on a variety of criminal and immigration appeals, and having represented Colorado criminal defense and mental health organizations in high–profile suits against the state of Colorado for violations of the constitutional rights of defendants.At MoFo, Scott serves on the board of the Morrison & Foerster Foundation. In the broader legal community, he serves on the boards of the Colorado Lawyers Committee and Drop in the Bucket (a charity that builds wells and sanitation systems in sub–Saharan Africa).After law school, Scott clerked for the Honorable Clarence A. Brimmer, District of Wyoming, and the Honorable Diarmuid F. O’Scannlain, Ninth Circuit. He was also previously an adjunct professor at the Georgetown University Law Center.

llewellyn_scott_blog_150x150.png

llewellyn_scott_common_640x280.jpg

llewellyn_scott_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

llewellyn_scott_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

llewellyn_scott_social_600x600.jpg

Partner

Scott Llewellyn’s practice involves complex litigation before state and federal courts around the country, with an emphasis on patent and trade secret disputes for high-tech companies, to which he brings more than 35 years of experience with computer hardware and software, in particular relating to the processing and transmission of audio, video, voice, and other types of data. Mr. Llewellyn has also tried commercial arbitration and agency matters; briefed and argued various appeals in federal appellate court; and tried more than 20 cases for the Denver city attorney’s office, most of them jury trials.

Scott F. Llewellyn

favicon.ico

favicon-16x16.png

favicon-32x32.png

apple-touch-icon.png

MoFo Favicons

MoFo Tech brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry, covering fields such as blockchain and distributed ledger, cloud and SaaS technologies, driverless cars, drones, FinTech, computer hardware and software, the IoT, semiconductors, and telecommunications.

Mofo Tech testimage

Announcements

Welcome to the MoFo Tech Blog

Blog - Blog Disclaimer

Blog - Terms of Use

Blog - Privacy Policy

Blog - Attorney Advertising

morrison-foerster-blog-logo.png

Provides insights and reports on the most current class actions lawsuits and product liability issues that affect consumer-facing companies.

Class Dismissed Blog

Class Dismissed

In-depth analysis of developments and trends impacting government contracting.

Government Contract Insights Blog

Government Contract Insights

Government Contracts Insights Blog

Govcon

News and thought leadership from lawyers who are adding value to the legal profession and the communities we call home.

  External-Link

MoFo + Blog

MoFo+ Together

MoFo Tech brings together legal insights and in-depth analyses on trends and complex issues shaping the global technology industry, covering fields such as blockchain and distributed ledger, cloud and SaaS technologies, driverless cars, drones, FinTech, computer hardware and software, the IoT, semiconductors, and telecommunications.

MoFo Tech

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

MoFo Tech Blog - RSS

Stay Connected

At the Intersection of Technology, Law, and Business

At the Intersection of Technology, Law, and Business

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Blogs -  Home Button

Home

Blog - Topics

Telecommunications

Artificial Intelligence

Asia

Cloud Services + SaaS

European Union

Financings

Fintech

Hardware

Intellectual Property

Internet of Things

Litigation

Mergers + Acquisitions

Privacy + Data Security

Regulatory

Software

Tech Talks

Topics

Blog - Editors

Editors

Blog - About

About

Blog - Subscribe

Subscribe

More

AI Transparency in Healthcare: Navigating a Changing Regulatory Landscape

Recentive: Federal Circuit’s Patent-Eligibility Guideposts for Machine-Learning Inventions

Japan’s Approach to AI Regulation in 2025

Federal Circuit Clarifies Requirements for Prior Art Under Pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 102(e)

AI Agent as a Service in Medtech - Key Considerations for Commercial Contracts

The European Union is supposed to have the strongest data protection laws in the world. So why do privacy violations continue to make the headlines? I believe that the lack of material privacy compliance is not due to lack of enforcement, but is due to a fundamental flaw in our European data protection laws. Our laws are supposed to ensure people’s autonomy by providing choices about how their data is collected and used. In a world driven by artificial intelligence, we, however, can no longer understand what is happening to our data, and the concept of free choice is undermined by the very technology our laws aim to protect us against. The underlying logic of data-processing operations and the purposes for which they are used have now become so complex that they can only be described by means of intricate privacy policies that are simply not comprehensible to the average citizen. Further, the reality is that organizations find inscrutable ways of meeting information and consent requirements in a way that discourages individuals from specifying their true preferences, and, therefore, they often simply feel forced to click “OK” to obtain access to services.Our data protection laws have resulted in what Prof. Corien Prins and I have named mechanical proceduralism (read <a href="https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2784123" target="_blank">here</a>), whereby organizations go through the mechanics of notice and consent without any reflection on whether the relevant use of data is legitimate in the first place. In other words, the current preoccupation with what is legal is distracting us from asking what is legitimate to do with data. We even see this reflected in the highest EU court having to decide whether a pre-ticked box constitutes consent (surprise: it does not). Privacy legislation needs to regain its role of determining what is and what is not permissible. Instead of a legal system based on consent, we need to re-think the social contract for our digital society, by having the difficult discussion around where the red lines for data use should lie, rather than passing the responsibility for a fair digital society to individuals to make choices they cannot fully comprehend. Read our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/200521-eu-data-protection-laws.html">client alert</a>.

moerel_lokke_blog_150x150.png

moerel_lokke_common_640x280.jpg

moerel_lokke_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

moerel_lokke_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

moerel_lokke_social_600x600.jpg

Senior Of Counsel

Among the world’s best-known privacy and cybersecurity advisers, Lokke Moerel is regularly called upon by some of the most sophisticated multinational organizations to confront their global privacy and ethical challenges. Lokke routinely offers guidance to clients when implementing new technologies and digital business models and assists them with their global cybersecurity incident response and regulatory investigations.

Lokke Moerel

Lokke Moerel is among the world’s best-known privacy lawyers. She advises companies on their global information handling governance, strategy, and compliance. “An authority on data protection matters” (Chambers 2014), Lokke is consistently ranked as a leader in data protection law in Chambers Global and Legal 500. She is also professor of global ICT law at Tilburg University, member of the Cyber Security Council of the Netherlands, the advisory body of the Dutch cabinet, and member of the Board of Trustees of WWF International.What do you like best about your work? I enjoy thinking about the data privacy issues and ethical dilemma’s presented by the new technologies, and helping companies decide on how to tune them and implement on a global basis, in an emerging regulatory environment.What do you enjoy doing in your free time? Travel with my husband and three children, the modern arts, but most of all, a good book!What individual most inspired you, and why? In my former EU-based firm, there were no female role- models (I was the first female partner with children) and partners step out at age 55. After moving to MoFo, I met women years older than me and fully at the forefront of their field. What an inspiration! I still have a whole career in front of me.

mofo-tech-blog-image-30.jpg

EU Data Protection Laws Are Not Fit For Purpose: They Undermine the Very Autonomy of the Individuals They Set Out to Protect

EU Data Protection Laws Are Not Fit For Purpose: They Undermine the Very Autonomy of the Individuals They Set Out to Protect

mofo-tech-blog-image-30

The European Union is supposed to have the strongest data protection laws in the world. So why do privacy violations continue to make the headlines? I believe t

<p style="background-color: transparent;box-sizing: border-box;color: rgb(82, 83, 87);font-size: 16.93px;font-variant-numeric: normal;font-variant-east-asian: normal;line-height: 27.08px;margin-top: 0px;margin-right: 0px;margin-bottom: 20px;margin-left: 0px;padding-top: 0px;padding-right: 0px;padding-bottom: 0px;padding-left: 0px;overflow-wrap: normal;">On May 1, 2020 the last part of the German Trademark Law Modernization Act (Markenrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz – “MaMoG”), which contains practical relevant amendments to the procedural rules of the German trademark system, took effect. In particular, an administrative procedure for the revocation and the invalidation of trademarks based on relative grounds has been implemented, adding a new, cost-effective, and procedurally expedient tool to the range of possible methods of attacking adverse trademark registrations. It is expected that the amendments will be accompanied by a higher fluctuation of registrations and increases in demand for strategic counseling. <p style="background-color: transparent;box-sizing: border-box;color: rgb(82, 83, 87);font-size: 16.93px;font-variant-numeric: normal;font-variant-east-asian: normal;line-height: 27.08px;margin-top: 0px;margin-right: 0px;margin-bottom: 20px;margin-left: 0px;padding-top: 0px;padding-right: 0px;padding-bottom: 0px;padding-left: 0px;overflow-wrap: normal;">In our alert, we will provide you with a short overview of the new types of proceedings available and highlight their strategical relevance and effects. <p style="background-color: transparent;box-sizing: border-box;color: rgb(82, 83, 87);font-size: 16.93px;font-variant-numeric: normal;font-variant-east-asian: normal;line-height: 27.08px;margin-top: 0px;margin-right: 0px;margin-bottom: 20px;margin-left: 0px;padding-top: 0px;padding-right: 0px;padding-bottom: 0px;padding-left: 0px;overflow-wrap: normal;">Read <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/Germany-Adopts-Administrative-Trademark-Cancellation-Actions.html" target="_blank" style="background-color: transparent;box-sizing: border-box;color: rgb(77, 169, 197);line-height: 27.08px;text-decoration-line: none;">our alert</a>.

grohmann_robert_blog_150x150.png

grohmann_robert_common_640x280.jpg

grohmann_robert_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

grohmann_robert_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

grohmann_robert_social_600x600.jpg

Counsel

Robert advises companies from the technology and life sciences sectors on a wide range of commercial, intellectual property (IP) and regulatory matters. His clients range from multinational corporations to startups and scaleups.

Robert Grohmann

Robert Grohmann is counsel at Morrison Foerster’s German office in Berlin. As a member of the technology transactions group, he focuses on advising domestic and foreign companies and startups in all areas of technology and IP law, including patent and software licensing, employee inventions law, as well as know-how protection. Moreover, Mr. Grohmann’s expertise encompasses the judicial and extra-judicial representation in matters of trademark law, design law, and competition law.

mofo-tech-blog-image-8.jpg

Germany Adopts Administrative Trademark Cancellation Actions

Germany Adopts Administrative Trademark Cancellation Actions

mofo-tech-blog-image-8

On May 1, 2020 the last part of the German Trademark Law Modernization Act (Markenrechtsmodernisierungsgesetz – “MaMoG”), which contains practical relevant amen

Given the broad use and relative importance of service-level agreements (SLAs) in a variety of contexts, in this blog post, we provide an overview of the basics of SLAs and what they should address. An SLA is an important part of any contract with a provider of technology-based products or services. Customers and providers use SLAs to establish performance expectations for a wide variety of services, ranging from software-as-a-service (SaaS), maintenance, hosting, support, or other cloud-based services, to delivery of tangible goods.An SLA sets out the provider’s performance obligations with respect to the services it provides to the customer in measurable and objective terms via defined service-level requirements. 1.  Elements of a service level<ul><li>Service scope: Definition of what services are covered by the service levels.</li></ul><ul><li>Performance requirement: Definition of what performance is required for the measured activity. Think of it as the substance of what specifically must be done to have performed the service level (the “what” of the equation).</li></ul><ul><li>Performance standard: Definition of the performance standard. Think of this as proportion of the time (or some other means of measurement like percentage of transactions) for which the performance requirement must be met in order for the service level to be achieved. <ul><li>Often this is expressed as a percentage of the time the provider has performed the measured activity in accordance with the performance requirement.</li><li>The provider may designate certain exceptions or carve-outs to the performance standard (e.g., windows during which not meeting the performance standard is excused).</li></ul></li></ul>2.  Measurement of a service level<ul><li>Measurement period: Definition of the time period over which the service level is measured (e.g., hourly, daily, monthly).</li></ul><ul><li>Means of measurement: Reporting or other means of measuring whether the above elements have been achieved. The provider is typically responsible for measuring the service levels and reporting on a regular basis (e.g., monthly) on actual performance against the service levels. <ul><li>The parties should avoid subjective standards that are susceptible to conflicting interpretations, such as “reasonable efforts.”</li><li>The customer may want to specify how the service levels are reported and require the provider to carry out trend analysis on problems that are occurring.</li><li>Failure to provide a service-level report on time, or at all, may legitimately result in a service credit (see below) since the customer does not have the necessary means to assess whether the relevant service levels have been met without a service-level report.</li></ul></li></ul>3.  Remedies for failure to achieve service levelsRemedies for failure to achieve service levels are typically: (a) fee reductions or service credits against fees incurred, and (b) ultimately, termination for repeated failures. a.      Fee reductions or service credits against fees incurredService-level requirements are keyed to a specific formula for calculating fee reductions or service credits that the provider must issue to the customer if performance falls below the required service level. The fee reductions or service credits can be weighted based on relative importance. Service credits are usually expressed as a percentage of fees for the applicable service, to be credited against future charges to the customer if the provider fails to meet a service level.<ul><li>Optional to include: <ul><li>“At risk” amount: The percentage of the fees payable over a specified time period that are subject to service level credits. <ul><li>Example: “The maximum percentage of Fees payable over a Contract Year that are subject to the Service Level Credits is 30% of the sum of that Contract Year’s monthly recurring fees.”</li></ul></li></ul></li><li>Weighting factor: Apply a percentage value to each Service Level (total of all percentage values corresponding to the Service Levels should add up to 100%). <ul><li>Example: “If Provider does not achieve any of the Service Levels, Fees payable hereunder will be reduced in an amount equal to the product of: (i) one-twelfth of the Annual At-Risk Amount, multiplied by (ii) the Weighting Factor for the Service Level that was missed.”</li></ul></li><li>Multiplier applied to weighting factor (if service level credits and “at risk” amount is applied): The percentage of the “at risk” amount that is attributable to the service level for purposes of calculating service level credits. <ul><li>Example: “If there is a failure as to a single Service Level in 2 or more consecutive Measurement Periods or as to any Service Level within any 3-month period, then the Weighting Factor will be multiplied by 2.”</li></ul></li></ul><ul><li>Pro-provider terms that customers with greater leverage may be able to avoid: <ul><li>Limitation of service credits to a stated cap (for example, the total amount of fees otherwise payable for the services during the period when the service-level failure occurs).</li><li>Earn-backs: The parties might agree to a mechanism for the provider to earn back some or all credits imposed due to failure to meet service levels if its average performance over the course of a specified time period (e.g., a year) meets or exceeds the required service level.</li></ul></li></ul><ul><li>Service credits are typically applied to (deducted from) charges in the next invoice after they are incurred, but the parties may agree to apply them on an annual basis, deducting the total amount of service credits from the first invoice of the contract year.</li></ul><ul><li>To enhance the likelihood that service credits will be enforced, remedies generally should reflect a reasonable estimate of the customer’s injury for the corresponding service-level failure and constitute compensatory liquidated damages rather than a penalty for non-performance.</li></ul><ul><li>Exclusive remedy: Customers want to preserve the right to pursue other remedies under the master agreement (such as damages and termination) if the provider fails to meet service levels. On the other hand, providers want the service credits to be the customer’s only remedy for service level failures. <ul><li>Pro-customer example: “The Service Credits shall not be considered liquidated damages or Customer’s sole and exclusive remedy for Provider’s failure to meet Service Levels."</li></ul></li></ul><div>  b.      Termination for repeated failure to achieve the service-level commitment over a pre-defined period of   timeCustomers will want to negotiate for the right to terminate without liability or further obligations for repeated failures to meet the same or different service-level requirements.<ul><li>Example: “Provider’s failure to achieve a single Service Level in 2 or more consecutive Measurement Periods, or any Service Level in 4 or more Measurement Periods during any 6-month period or Contract Year will constitute a material breach under the Master Agreement and Customer may terminate for cause as set forth therein.”</li></ul></div>

sharron_stephanie_blog_150x150.png

sharron_stephanie_common_640x280.jpg

sharron_stephanie_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

sharron_stephanie_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

sharron_stephanie_social_600x600.jpg

Stephanie assists companies with technology and life sciences transactions, representing both private and public companies, from emerging growth through the Fortune 50. In particular, Stephanie focuses on helping companies that leverage data through technology in structuring their business and commercial transactions.

Stephanie Sharron

Stephanie Sharron is partner in the Palo Alto office and a member of the firm’s Technology Transactions Group. Clients turn to Ms. Sharron for advice on how to leverage data through technology and the related issues that apply to their business models in light of the rapid changes in business, technology and law.

Stephanie Lynn Sharron

mofo-tech-blog-image-2.jpg

Service-Level Agreement Basics

mofo-tech-blog-image-2

Given the broad use and relative importance of service-level agreements (SLAs) in a variety of contexts, in this blog post, we provide an overview of the basics

Service-Level Agreement Basics

This Monday, May 4, 2020, the United States Supreme Court will hear its first-ever telephonic oral arguments in a trademark case regarding the nature of the boundary between “descriptive” and “generic” terms.  While the question presented is narrow—whether the addition of a generic top-level domain (such as “.com”) to an otherwise generic term (such as “booking” for travel booking services) can create a protectable trademark—the Court’s ruling could affect how a wide array of brands are (or are no longer) enforced.Read our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/resources/insights/200501-landmark-trademark-protection-case-us-supreme-court.html">client alert</a>.

huq_muzamil_blog_150x150.png

huq_muzamil_common_640x280.jpg

huq_muzamil_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

huq_muzamil_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

huq_muzamil_social_600x600.jpg

Of Counsel

Muzamil Huq represents clients in the protection and enforcement of U.S. and non-U.S. trademark matters and other IP transactions. 

Muzamil Huq

Muzamil Huq represents clients in the protection and enforcement of U.S. and non-U.S. trademark matters and other IP transactions.

mofotechblog-litigation-600x295-gavel.jpg

Landmark Trademark Protection Case Before Supreme Court

The Madden Saga Continues: On Remand, Madden Survives Summary Judgment and District Court Certifies Class

637294178

This Monday, May 4, 2020, the United States Supreme Court will hear its first-ever telephonic oral arguments in a trademark case regarding the nature of the bou

Landmark Trademark Protection Case Before Supreme Court

As in-house counsel, compliance, and security teams worldwide are adjusting to life amid the global pandemic, so too are criminal and nation-state cyber actors. These actors are now leveraging the pandemic, public fear, and an expanded remote-work attack surface to conduct hacking campaigns. The Department of Justice, FBI, and other law enforcement organizations have prioritized the detection, investigation, and prosecution of criminal conduct seeking to exploit the pandemic. As noted in a joint statement this week from the Secret Service and FBI, “the more catastrophic the event, the more active the fraudsters.” Resource pages developed by the FBI and DOJ are being frequently updated with information and alerts for the private sector and public about evolving schemes and enforcement. Companies can leverage these resources as they adapt to the new environment and educate their workforce. Read our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/lZ8lCmZM8ki3wRRquOf_rS?domain=www2.mofo.com">client alert.</a> For more information about Coronavirus (COVID-19) preparedness, please visit our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/3cB8Cn5N7lH2066VhNf03o?domain=www2.mofo.com">Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resource Center</a>.

200302-coronovirus-covid-19-promo.jpg

Law Enforcement COVID-19 Guidance: Cybercrime, Scam, and Fraud Trends

Practical Considerations for Requiring Employees to Report to Work in Light of COVID-19 Stay-at-Home Orders

200302-coronovirus-covid-19-promo

As in-house counsel, compliance, and security teams worldwide are adjusting to life amid the global pandemic, so too are criminal and nation-state cyber actors.

Law Enforcement COVID-19 Guidance: Cybercrime, Scam, and Fraud Trends

On April 2, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that, effective immediately, it will be halting enforcement of certain HIPAA provisions in order to enable state and federal public health authorities and emergency operations centers to more efficiently collect COVID-19 patient data directly from regulated service providers in the healthcare industry (Business Associates). Read our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/blv-CBBROvirxrMpU6B-Kg?domain=www2.mofo.com">client alert.</a> For more information about Coronavirus (COVID-19) preparedness, please visit our <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/csnkCDkJ6xUz7znNFAAZVw?domain=www2.mofo.com">Coronavirus (COVID-19) Resource Center</a>.

HHS Suspends Penalties to Encourage Sharing of COVID-19 Data by Business Associates

On April 2, 2020, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office for Civil Rights (OCR) announced that, effective immediately, it will be haltin

HHS Suspends Penalties to Encourage Sharing of COVID-19 Data by Business Associates

History in the Making Morrison & Foerster would like to congratulate our clients Sprint and SoftBank on closing the blockbuster deal between Sprint and T-Mobile, creating the “New T-Mobile” - a transaction that significantly reshapes the future of the telecom industry.  Announced in 2018 and closed as of April 1, 2020, the landmark deal is valued at $59 billion, with the aggregate for the combined company in the all-stock transaction valued at approximately $146 billion, making it one of the largest telecommunications deals in history. We were honored to serve as lead counsel to Sprint and SoftBank Group, the controlling shareholder of Sprint, on this historic transaction. More than six years in the making, the transaction required sophisticated navigation of numerous legal complexities concerning governance issues, regulatory approvals, and cross-border matters, as the deal involved four publicly traded companies and foreign controlling shareholders on each side. The MoFo team was led by MoFo M&A partner Brandon C. Parris and antitrust partner Jeff Jaeckel, and included hundreds of MoFo lawyers across practice areas in offices around the globe. Read more about the <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/u0L_C0RXEMi5XZWpcDA04F?domain=www2.mofo.com">transaction.</a> Dealmaker of the Year  We are also proud to celebrate San Francisco M&A partner Brandon Parris, who was named by The American Lawyer as a 2020 Dealmaker of the Year for his role in Sprint’s blockbuster $59 billion merger with T-Mobile and the company’s corresponding $5 billion divestiture of assets to DISH. This award follows a year of recognitions, including being named a Law360 MVP of the Year for M&A, as well as a Top 100 Leading Lawyer by the Daily Journal. As part of the recognition, Brandon was interviewed by The American Lawyer, which can be found on its <a href="https://protect-us.mimecast.com/s/c9c3CgJQ8yHR1pWDc2qFxg?domain=www2.mofo.com" target="_blank">website</a>. Congratulations, Brandon!

LendingClub

Elevate Credit

Southwest Gas

MobileIron

Breedon Group

Palo Alto Networks

Sprint and SoftBank Group

VMware

McKesson Corporation

Santen Pharmaceutical/InnFocus

Affinity Gaming

Boyd Gaming Corporation

SoftBank

DreamWorks Animation

Shutterfly

Westcorp/Wachovia

Novellus Systems

USANA Health Sciences

parris_brandon_blog_150x150.png

parris_brandon_common_640x280.jpg

parris_brandon_heroretina_2700x1160.jpg

parris_brandon_mobileretina_750x1040.jpg

parris_brandon_social_600x600.jpg

Co-Chair of Transactions Department

Brandon Parris is a corporate partner and serves as co-chair of the firm's Transactions Department.

Brandon C. Parris

Brandon Parris

SoftBank/Clearwire Corporation

Fujisawa Pharmaceutical Co./Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical Co.

SoftBank/Sprint  Nextel

Elpida Memory

International  Air Cargo Cartel Investigation

International  Freight Forwarding Cartel Investigation &amp; Litigation

AirTran  Baggage Fee Antitrust Investigation &amp; Litigation

U.S.  Department of Justice Investigation of Major International Transportation  Company

Semiconductor  Industry Cartel Investigation

Astellas  Pharma Inc.

ACON Laboratories

Epitomics

InSound Medical

Genentech/Tanox

Southwest/AirTran

ON  Semiconductor/Sanyo Semiconductor

Clearwire/Sprint  Nextel

Astellas  Pharma Inc. $537 million Acquisition

Astellas  Pharma Merger

Vice Chair

Jeff Jaeckel

Congratulations to Sprint and SoftBank on the Closing of the Blockbuster $59 Billion Deal with T-Mobile