Talk:Irell & Manella

Representation of patent troll

I have reverted changes, both in Irell & Manella and Morgan Chu articles, containing original research that links a horribly-ill-timed lawsuit with Coronavirus-19 testing. I don't find any reliable sources that explicitly support this linkage, and even the plaintiff says there is none.

Let's examine the sources that have been added:

• TechDirt - this is a fulminating, angry, non-objective opinion piece, which certainly cannot be used to make claims in a BLP article. The author's opinions aren't relevant, and this isn't worth citing, least of all parroting the assertions in Wikipedia's voice.
• Ars Technica - this is a reliable source but mentions nothing about the law firm or Morgan Chu. There is no dispute that the law firm represents the patent troll. However, the article describes a timeline that does not support a linkage between the lawsuit and the virus testing, and also quotes the plaintiff as saying that there is no linkage.
• Law360 - another good, reliable source, mentioning representation by Irell & Manella as well as Morgan Chu. This source is good for verifying the representation. However, the source does not say that the lawsuit's purpose was to prevent coronavirus testing; instead, like the Ars Technica piece, it reports that the plaintiff was unaware that Biomeriux was involved in developing coronavirus tests.

Those last two sources likely refer to the press release by Labrador (the plaintiff), which thankfully hasn't been added anywhere as a source (to my knowlege).

Until we have reliable sources verifying that Labrador tried to stop Biomeriux from developing Covid-19 tests, it constitutes original research to add it, as well as a WP:BLP violation to do so in a biography article.

I could support a sentence something like this: "Irell & Manella / Morgan Chu represent the firm Labrador Diagnostics LLC, which initiated a controversial lawsuit against a company that had been developing tests for Covid-19." I think, though, that it would be best to wait until we know if this factoid is going to be lasting news or just a passing current event. ~Anachronist (talk) 02:12, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@Anachronist: Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. I entirely agree that the TechDirt piece is fairly bloggy in style. I would replace it with a better one if it was easily found. That said, I can hardly blame the author for being spitting mad, and I wouldn't really expect particularly objective coverage even if The Washington Post took a hack at it. I also don't think that being angry is necessarily a disqualifier - the Copyright Alliance puts out very classy professional press releases I'm sure, but that doesn't make them more reliable.

For the Ars Technica piece, I don't think the plaintiff's opinion on linkage is particularly relevant; the important thing is that the time was linked, regardless if that was the intent or not.

For the third source, I think that's good as a basis for inclusion in the article. The plaintiff saying they were clueless is relevant to include, and readers can decide.

Checking, it looks like The Verge had a story on this: https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/18/21185006/softbank-theranos-coronavirus-covid-lawsuit-patent-testing. . Doesn't mention Irell & Manella in it, but it cites the Techdirt story, so that seems to be uncontroversially true but perhaps of questionable relevance. Also, this article https://www.law.com/therecorder/2020/03/18/theres-more-to-the-irell-covid-19-patent-troll-suit-than-meets-the-eye/ is rather sympathetic to Irell & Manella, but does bring them up.

In general, I agree there's issues of undue weight here because this article is so short - if this article was 20 paragraphs long, then including this incident, which clearly did generate stories calling out Irell & Manella directly and questioning their judgment, would be uncontroversial. It is jarring because even two sentences ends up being a significant part of the story here. However, I think this is a fair if embarrassing incident to bring up for them. All 5 of these sources combined show that it did attract attention, even if the focus sometimes is on Theranos and SoftBank. I think it can be restored, but maybe a more equivocal phrasing would help? e.g. cite both Techdirt and the law.com article? SnowFire (talk) 02:27, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

(Edit: Seems you agree this could merit something. I think your sentence is okay as a basis to start from, although the fact it includes Theranos patents is included in every story about this which is part of why the whole incident got in the news to begin with - they should have known those weren't worth anything.). SnowFire (talk) 02:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I started this thread in the context of both articles, because Morgan Chu is practically synonymous with Irell & Manella. I disagree that citing TechDirt is appropriate for either one, especially the BLP. I'm fine with the other two I mentioned.

As lawsuits go, this one couldn't have been timed any worse! Well, I guess it could have, if the lawsuit occurred after the announcement of the Covid-19 test. In any case, the fact that the lawsuit was filed before the announcement makes any connection beyond coincidence pure speculation — and the two reputable sources I listed, as well as the Verge source you found, are careful not to make the connection in their own voice. I can't access the law.com article. These sources don't say in their own voice that the purpose of the lawsuit was to stop development of Covid-19 tests.

And neither should we. (I do find it odd, though, that Ars Technica says it in the headline but not in the body, which I find surprising from a source I respect.)

As you pointed out, this article is short, and more than a sentence would be undue weight, especially if it focuses more on the patent troll than the article subject (for either article). I'm open to suggestions. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:23, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to stick this on the Chu article, so not relevant unless Chu personally filed the lawsuit or something. Also, while I brought up the undue weight issue myself, I think the ultimate fix for that is to expand the rest of the article, not remove this notable-for-the-wrong-reasons incident in the firm's history.

Also, I think you're too focused on the idea that Fortress wasn't intentionally trying to shut down Covid-19 tests. I don't think anybody thinks they were, but the criticism is that such patent trolls take time and money from legitimate companies blindly, including legitimate companies that happen to be doing important things, and it's just as bad.

I took a hack at it; take a look. SnowFire (talk) 05:29, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

@SnowFire: I think what you wrote is pretty good, actually. My concern was about stating in Wikipedia's voice that the lawsuit's purpose was to stop development of Covid-19 tests. Readers can draw their own conclusions. The text you added describes the situation clearly and succinctly, and has good sources. ~Anachronist (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

This puts Morgan Chu's name as a lawyer. https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/6811201/Labrador-v-Biofire.pdf 11cookeaw1 (talk) 17:35, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Would like to propose edits but have a conflict of interest

Hi – this page has numerous inaccuracies, primarily because it’s out of date. I would like to propose some edits, but I have a conflict of interest (I work for the firm). I’m hoping you can help guide me in the best way to make or propose edits in a way that doesn’t violate conflict-of-interest guidelines. Should I run them by the editors here? Firstly, I want to correct flat out factual inaccuracies, including who our managing partner is, the number of offices, etc. Lots of stuff like that, which shouldn’t be controversial. Secondly, I would like to flesh out the page. Currently, the Labrador lawsuit is given undue weigh (as discussed on this talk page) and I’d like to rectify that by adding to the page. Can you please advise on how I should proceed? My first priority is correcting the inaccuracies. Thank you very much for your help.

KJWLA (talk) 17:23, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

@KJWLA: The best approach is to propose a change on this talk page. You can preface your proposal with the tag {{edit COI}} to cause your request to be listed in a category page that is monitored by some editors.

With a conflict of interest, you can still make minor edits, such as correcting numbers and names, adding citations to reliable secondary sources, and reverting obvious vandalism. Anything more substantive, however, you need to propose here on this talk page. ~Anachronist (talk) 18:55, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

First learn Wikipedia policy WP:RS

Proposed edits for review (have conflict of interest)

Hello - I'd like to request some additions to this page (but have a conflict of interest). Specifically, I'd like to add notable cases, notable lawyers and alumni. I pasted the proposed changes below for review. I hope I included the cites correctly, but I have a feeling I did not. I do know how to add the cites on the main page. If I'm proposing edits incorrectly, please let me know. I'm trying to learn how to navigate the talk pages, but I don't really know what I'm doing yet. I welcome any and all advice. I also propose moving the Labrador case under the notable cases section. Thank you for your help.

PROPOSED EDITS

Notable Cases

• Irell was originally founded as a tax boutique, representing clients including Lucille Ball, Orson Welles and Kirk Douglas. • Represented Candle Corp. against Boole & Babbage in the first trial involving a patent on computer software. • Secured $1.7 billion in judgments and settlements for TiVo in patent infringement litigation related to its digital video recorder technology. • Represented City of Hope in a patent licensing dispute with Genentech related to the world’s first biotechnology drug. City of Hope subsequently named its graduate school the Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences. • Secured a $2.175 billion jury award for VLSI Technology LLC in an infringement trial against Intel related to microprocessor technology. The award was one of the largest patent infringement verdicts in U.S. history. • Together with Public Counsel, Irell filed a pro bono first-of-its-kind federal class action against the Compton School District on behalf of students who are victims of trauma (Peter P. v. Compton Unified School District). The suit sought to compel the district to incorporate proven practices that address the barriers to learning caused by trauma, in the same way public schools have adapted to help students who experience physical or other barriers to learning. Irell and Public Counsel defeated Compton’s motion to dismiss by convincing the district court that trauma should be a recognized disability under federal anti-discrimination statutes. After overcoming the initial skepticism of the school district and community leaders, the parties collaborated to develop Compton Unified School District’s Wellness Initiative, a multi-pronged program designed to address the academic, social emotional, attendance and behavioral needs of students. • Represented PanOptis in a suit against Apple Inc. involving patents essential to LTE technology, in the first patent jury trial of the COVID-19 pandemic. • In 2019, a jury awarded Irell clients Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research and Juno Therapeutics $752 million for infringement of a cancer immunotherapy patent and a judge enhanced the award to $1.2 billion the next year. • Obtained a 2019 unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. in a case that reversed a United States Patent and Trademark Office policy. • Obtained more than $300 million in jury awards for USAA in patent suits against Wells Fargo involving mobile remote deposit technology. • Served as counsel for Uber in class action over Uber’s “Safe Rides” fee and a securities fraud class action. [21] • Served as lead defense counsel for Angelo Mozilo, the former CEO and chairman of national mortgage giant Countrywide Financial, in dozens of lawsuits and government proceedings across the country stemming from the 2008 financial crisis. • Represented the National Resources Defense Council before the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) and National Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Winter, et al., 543 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2008), concerning the U.S. Navy's ability to use sonar during drills given the possibility of a harmful effect on marine mammals such as whales. • Secured $120 million jury verdict for Stac Electronics, a small software company, against Microsoft in 1994 in the first patent infringement suit against Microsoft ever to reach a trial. • Represented Dastar Corp. in the U.S. Supreme Court in a Lanham Act case (Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.), defeating Fox's claim that Dastar could not use its own name in promoting its videos. • Represented Amazon in the Southern District of New York as an objector to a class action settlement reached between Google Inc. and authors and publishers who sued for copyright infringement over the Google Books project. (The Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc.)

Notable Attorneys

• Morgan Chu • Andrei Iancu • David Nimmer

Notable Alumni

• Carlos R. Moreno • Layn R. Phillips • David Huebner • Kenny Heitz • Victor Jih

References

KJWLA (talk) 18:48, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

 Not done @KJWLA: Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate list of "stuff", so for the cases you are proposing to include, independent reliable sources that have written about the firm's involvement are needed to support they warrant inclusion. If sources writing about the firm do not exist then the content cannot be included. Sources are also required for notable members of the firm. I suggest checking those articles to see if sources already exist there and using those. I am declining this request but you are welcome to submit another one following the above guidance. S0091 (talk) 19:25, 7 August 2021 (UTC)

S0091 (talk) I hope I am responding to you correctly. Thank you for your feedback. I've added additional sources and will be resubmitting for review shortly. I think I did have strong reliable sources for the vast majority of cases, but I have added more. I did not have any included for the notable attorneys, so I've added those as well. If any of the sources seem problematic, please let me know which ones. The only problem I can see is that some are behind paywalls. I tried to use non-paywall sources when possible, but unfortunately, that's not possible in many cases. All of the legal trades, which write about who represents who, are behind paywalls. Thanks again for your help and advice. It's much appreciated. KJWLA (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edits for review (have conflict of interest)

Hi, I would like to propose some additions to this page, but I have a conflict of interest. I propose adding the following three additional sections to the existing page (and moving the Labrador reference to under Notable Cases). Thank you for your consideration. KJWLA (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

PROPOSED ADDITIONAL SECTIONS

 Not done: Denied due to excessive bloat. Quetstar (talk) 03:27, 30 August 2021 (UTC)

Proposed edits for review (have conflict of interest)

Hi, I would like to propose some additions to this page, but I have a conflict of interest. I propose adding the following three additional sections to the existing page (and moving the Labrador reference to under Notable Cases). Thank you for your consideration. KJWLA (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2021 (UTC)

PROPOSED ADDITIONAL SECTIONS

Notable Cases

• Irell was originally founded as a tax boutique, representing clients including Lucille Ball, Orson Welles and Kirk Douglas.

• Represented Candle Corp. against Boole & Babbage in the first trial involving a patent on computer software.

• Secured $1.7 billion in judgments and settlements for TiVo in patent infringement litigation related to its digital video recorder technology.

• Represented City of Hope in a patent licensing dispute with Genentech related to the world’s first biotechnology drug. City of Hope subsequently named its graduate school the Irell & Manella Graduate School of Biological Sciences.

• Secured a $2.175 billion jury award for VLSI Technology LLC in an infringement trial against Intel related to microprocessor technology. The award was one of the largest patent infringement verdicts in U.S. history.

• Together with Public Counsel, Irell filed a pro bono first-of-its-kind federal class action against the Compton School District on behalf of students who are victims of trauma (Peter P. v. Compton Unified School District). The suit sought to compel the district to incorporate proven practices that address the barriers to learning caused by trauma, in the same way public schools have adapted to help students who experience physical or other barriers to learning. Irell and Public Counsel defeated Compton’s motion to dismiss by convincing the district court that trauma should be a recognized disability under federal anti-discrimination statutes. After overcoming the initial skepticism of the school district and community leaders, the parties collaborated to develop Compton Unified School District’s Wellness Initiative, a multi-pronged program designed to address the academic, social emotional, attendance and behavioral needs of students.

• Represented PanOptis in a suit against Apple Inc. involving patents essential to LTE technology, in the first patent jury trial of the COVID-19 pandemic.

• In 2019, a jury awarded Irell clients Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research and Juno Therapeutics $752 million for infringement of a cancer immunotherapy patent and a judge enhanced the award to $1.2 billion the next year.

• Obtained a 2019 unanimous U.S. Supreme Court decision in Peter v. NantKwest, Inc. in a case that reversed a United States Patent and Trademark Office policy.

• Obtained more than $300 million in jury awards for USAA in patent suits against Wells Fargo involving mobile remote deposit technology.

• Served as counsel for Uber in class action over Uber’s “Safe Rides” fee and a securities fraud class action.

• Served as lead defense counsel for Angelo Mozilo, the former CEO and chairman of national mortgage giant Countrywide Financial, in dozens of lawsuits and government proceedings across the country stemming from the 2008 financial crisis.

• Represented Juniper Networks in numerous intellectual property matters including defending against infringement allegations over malware detection patents brought by Finjan Holdings.

• Represented Skechers in defense of trademark infringement allegations involving Converse (shoe company) Chuck Taylor All Star sneakers.

• Represented the Natural Resources Defense Council before the U.S. Supreme Court and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 555 U.S. 7 (2008) and National Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Winter, et al., 543 F.3d 1152 (9th Cir. 2008), concerning the U.S. Navy's ability to use sonar during drills given the possibility of a harmful effect on marine mammals such as whales.

• Secured $120 million jury verdict for Stac Electronics, a small software company, against Microsoft in 1994 in the first patent infringement suit against Microsoft ever to reach a trial.

• Represented Dastar Corp. in the U.S. Supreme Court in a Lanham Act case (Dastar Corp. v. Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp.), defeating Fox's claim that Dastar could not use its own name in promoting its videos.

• Represented Amazon in the Southern District of New York as an objector to a class action settlement reached between Google Inc. and authors and publishers who sued for copyright infringement over the Google Books project. (The Authors Guild, Inc. v. Google Inc.)

Notable Attorneys

• Morgan Chu

• Andrei Iancu

• David Nimmer

Notable Alumni

• Carlos R. Moreno

• Layn R. Phillips

• Kenny Heitz

• Victor Jih

References