Clear Case Legal team members have worked on hundreds of cases, supporting litigating attorneys in the areas of biotech, class action, complex business law, construction, employment, insurance, intellectual property, international, land use, malpractice, medical, natural resources, oil and gas, product liability, real estate, securities, white collar criminal and many others.


A sampling:

Sigma Designs* v. Marvel
In this contract/intellectual property arbitration, the plaintiff team at Haynes Boone retained Clear Case Legal to create a streamlined expert witness tutorial for the judge, presenting the technology, the specs and the terms, as well as a timeline that impacted the contract in question. The judge ruled in our client’s favor.

Gallo Cattle Co. v. Merced Irrigation District*
The Duane Morris/Miller Starr Regalia defense team retained Clear Case Legal to strategize and present to the jury a clear representation of the facts in this major water rights litigation that had far reaching implications for the state of California and California farmers. Complicating the presentation was a nearly impenetrable 1918 document and a complex series of historical maps of waterways. Clear Case produced over 20 demonstratives for mock trial and trial. Mid-trial, Plaintiff settled in a decisive victory for the defense.  Read More>>

Meyer, Brunson v. Health Plan of Nevada*
In this high-profile case involving a single doctor’s disregard for patients’ safety and plaintiff’s attempt to hold the entire HMO community responsible, the trial teams from Bryan Cave (Phoenix) and Weinberg Wheeler Hudgins (Las Vegas) retained Clear Case Legal. Working with defense counsel, in-house counsel and the jury consultant, Clear Case participated in strategy as well as conceptualizing and designing over 30 demonstratives for mock trial and trial. This case is on appeal.

Block et al v. Helix, Union Pacific Railroad*
The defense team at Farella Braun+Martell (San Francisco) chose Clear Case Legal to help defend its clients in this high-profile environmental litigation. Working with the trial team, Clear Case developed a variety of graphics for mock trial and trial. The trial has been continued.

U.S.* v. Steven Leung (AU Optronics)
The Department of Justice (San Francisco division) retained Clear Case Legal to assist in the prosecution of Defendant Steven Leung in this wide-spread, international White Collar Criminal/AntiTrust/Fraud litigation involving LCD screen price fixing. Working with the Attorneys General in this office, Clear Case provided strategic support regarding Opening Statement and the story throughout the case-in-chief, as well as creating over a dozen trial demonstratives. The jury deliberated for a very short time before returning a guilty verdict.

Deutsche Bank v. Hashemi*
In this extremely complex case involving third-party fraud by co-conspirators, the defense team of Andersen Hilbert & Parker (San Diego) hired Clear Case Legal to provide strategic story and demonstrative support for mock trial and trial. On the eve of trial, the case was settled with complete restitution for the Defendant.

29 Palms Tribe* v. FPM Law
The Los Angeles law firm of Spolin Cohen Mainzer & Bosserman retained Clear Case Legal to strategize and create a series of demonstratives for trial which visualized this legal malpractice/fraud case in which a series of fraudulent non-disclosed fees and false directives were perpetrated on the tribe. During exchange of graphics, a quick settlement was reached in favor of our client.

Columbia Industries v. Zurich American Insurance*
In this complex insurance case in which plaintiff alleged bad faith, the law firm of Bishop Barry Drath (Oakland) retained Clear Case Legal to conceptualize and produce a dozen graphics for trial highlighting the ambiguities of plaintiff’s requests. The case settled favorably for both parties before coming to trial.

U.S.* v. Frank Peake
The Department of Justice (Washington, DC & San Francisco) retained Clear Case Legal to assist in the prosecution of Defendant Frank Peake in this price-fixing White Collar Criminal/AntiTrust litigation being litigated in Puerto Rico. Fixing shipping charges among competitors was the focus of this case. Attorneys General from the Washington and San Francisco offices retained Clear Case Legal to assist in clarifying the story and to conceptualize and create a series of graphics for trial. The jury returned a verdict in favor of the Department of Justice.

Hair v. Fidelity National*
In this easement/diminution of land value case, the defense team at Murphy Rosen Meylan & Davitt (Los Angeles) retained Clear Case to conceptualize and produce a series of demonstratives for trial that provided visual and statistical evidence that refuted plaintiff’s claims. The case settled.

Robinson* v. U-Haul
In this malicious prosecution case against U-Haul, the plaintiff firm of Freeman and Freeman (Santa Rosa, CA) retained Clear Case Legal to conceptualize, design and produce trial graphics, provide document management, and deliver in-trial support. The trial has been continued.

Lawyers Title* v. Christensen
The Boise, Idaho law firm of Jones Gledhill Fuhrman Gourley retained Clear Case Legal to prepare tutorials and demonstratives for the plaintiff’s case that involves construction issues. The case is scheduled for a late-spring trial.

Oracle* v. Google
In support of Oracle in this high-profile intellectual property case, Morrison & Foerster retained the Clear Case Legal team to first design over 22 complex 2D and 3D animations, and to produce and author a tutorial DVD with those animations for the judge and for the Markman Hearing.

Singh v. Commonwealth Title*
In this complex real estate litigation that involves a third party withholding funds, in-house counsel at Fidelity National (Los Angeles) retained Clear Case Legal to assist in defining the presentation and creating demonstratives for mock trial and trial. The case settled before trial.

Fujitsu v. Belkin, Netgear et al.*
In this intellectual property case, co-defendant law firms Reed Smith (San Francisco), Winston & Strawn (Los Angeles & Houston) and the Law Offices of SJ Christine Yang (Los Angeles) retained Clear Case Legal to create over 150 tutorial and Markman frames for presentations regarding six key claim construction terms. The judge ruled in favor of our key terms.

eTool Development v. National Semiconductor*
Clear Case Legal was retained by the defense team at Morrison & Foerster to design and author a Markman DVD tutorial for the judge in Texas’ Eastern District. With a rapidly approaching deadline, and utilizing archived materials, patent office and prior art documents, as well as original animations, the Clear Case team was able to produce the 27-minute tutorial on schedule. This case continues.

Young* v. Crestwood Behavioral
The Law offices of Freeman & Freeman hired Clear Case Legal to support plaintiff in this tragic medical malpractice suit. The health facility claimed it followed protocol and that the heretofore-functioning 60-year old woman simply declined from natural causes. However, Clear Case Legal prepared comparative photos, doctor reports and other startling documentation showing that the woman deteriorated not once but twice in the facility’s care from mistreatment till she was in a permanent vegetative state. On the first day of trial, presenting one of the dramatic demonstratives to opposing counsel, defense settled very favorably with our client.

Wi-Lan v. Westell Technologies, Intel, Broadcom et al*
Co-defendant Broadcom, through its Latham & Watkins trial team, retained Clear Case Legal to design, produce and author a complex DVD tutorial for their Eastern District (Texas) Markman Hearing. This high-stakes litigation, which involves 26 co-defendants, alleges various patent infringements focusing on DSL and other Internet technologies. Working within a short time frame, Clear Case designed a series of twelve animations clarifying fundamental DSL concepts as well as illustrating the patented technologies in question. The judge ruled favorably on our client’s arguments.

BJ Miler et al v. Chicago Title Co.*
The team of Latham & Watkins and Miller Starr Regalia retained Clear Case Legal in this complex high-profile four-year defense of Chicago Title Co. At issue were multiple co-plaintiffs alleging that our client helped facilitate a $30 million real estate fraud. Already found guilty of the fraud was plaintiffs’ long-time associate and social contact. As information was revealed over years of discovery, and working with both legal teams, in-house counsel and jury consultants, Clear Case provided story and theme analysis, defense and plaintiff graphics for mock trials, and finally an extensive series of opening, trial and closing demonstratives compartmentalizing the inconsistencies and duplicitous arguments of each individual plaintiff, many of whom willingly participated in the fraud. The months-long trial ended in a jury verdict overwhelmingly exonerating Chicago Title in 17 of the 19 plaintiff demands. The other two outstanding (minor) claims settled very favorably for our client.

CNET* v. Etilize
Winston & Strawn, representing plaintiff, hired Clear Case Legal to consult on story structure and produce demonstratives for mock trial, expert witnesses and trial. The patent infringement case revolved around the theft of trade secrets, confidential data, and the use of CNET’s patent for creating online electronic catalogs. Approximately 30 graphics, animations and interactive tools were designed, first to test arguments in mock and then to educate the jurors about the pivotal patented technology that created unprecedented labor efficiencies, efficiencies that “brute force” manual labor could not duplicate. Shortly before trial, the case settled favorably for our client.

McKesson/Bear Stearns Securities Litigation
In this class action lawsuit, lead counsel Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann hired Clear Case Legal to provide a visual roadmap to help jurors understand the nuances of the Merger and Acquisition process and the key role played by the defendant, investment bank Bear Stearns. We produced a series of tutorials to lay foundation, then honed in on key documents that evidenced fraud. A video montage dramatically spotlighted contradictory testimony by key defense witnesses. The case settled favorably.


A partial list:

Air Alliant v. New Piper Aircraft
FalconAir v. Pemco Aeroplex
Funderberg v. USA

Covad v. Bell Atlantic
Disposable Contact Lens Antitrust
US v. Horizon & SeaStar (Frank Peake)
US v. AU Optronics (Steven Leung)

Biotech & Medical
Biosite v. SOMA
Collagen v. Matrix
Genentech v. Pharmacia-Upjohn
Meyer, Brunson v. Health Plan of Nevada

Class Action
Clarent Securities Class Action
EDS Class Action Securities Litigation
McKesson/Bear Stearns Securities Class Action
States v. the Tobacco Industry

Barman v. Union Oil/Tosco
Flood v. Bessemer Trust
Hubbard v. Dayton-Hudson
Karaeff v. Trius Diagnostic Imaging
Martin v. Crowley Maritime Corporation
Pacific Funding Group v. Daz Vineyards
Rentrak v. Hollywood Entertainment
Robinson v. U-Haul
Sigma Designs v. Marvel
Storek & Storek v. Citicorp Real Estate
Union Pacific Railroad v. SFPP

Gateway v. Devcon Construction
Mortenson v. County of Alameda
Promontory View v. Haskell Constructors
Riviera HOA v. Lightweight Concrete
Summit Builders v. Brisbane Hotel Partners

People of California v. Stuart Alexander
People of California v. Weathington
State of Kansas v. Debora Green

BJ Miller et al v. Chicago Title
Campbell v. Factory Mutual
Columbia Industries v. Zurich American Insurance
East West Bank v. Fidelity National
Executive Management v. Ticor Title Insurance
Gateway Bank v. CHL Mortgage, et al
Hair v. Fidelity National
Kleveland v. Chicago Title
Lawyers Title v. Christensen
Liberty National v. Chicago Title
Nevada Grooves v. Fidelity National Title
Pacific Funding Group v. Daz Vineyards
San Paolo v. AMCO Insurance
Singh v. Commonwealth Land Title
Washington Federal v. Chicago Title
Wise v. Reliastar Insurance

Intellectual Property
(includes ITC & Markman)
Adidas America v. NCAA
American Airlines v. Yahoo! v. Barnes & Noble
Business Objects v. Cognos
CNET v. Etilize
DealerTrack v. RouteOne
eTool Development v. National Semiconductor
Fujitsu v. Belkin, Netgear et al
Global Locate (Broadcom) v. SiRF Technologies
Hilgraeve v. Symantec
Imatech v. Apple
KeyTrak v. Key Register
Matoza v. Netscape
Nortel v. ONI Systems
Oracle v. Google
Ricoh v. Aeroflex et al/Synopsys
Scharf v. Applied Materials
Stanacard Litigations
Trimble Navigation v. RHS
Vantis v. Altera
White v. Seagate
Wi-Lan v. Westell Technologies, Broadcom et al

Aguilera v. Hilltown Packing
Bradshaw v. Bank of America
Current, Conrad v. Perry/GSA
Drush v. FormFactor
Elena v. The Standard Insurance Co.
Kailer v. Applied Thin-Film Products
Posner v. Kaiser Permanente Medical Group
Wise v. Reliastar Insurance

Land Use & Environmental
BART v. DelArroz
BART v. Sierra Pacific
Block et al v. Helix, Union Pacific Railroad
Cohen v. Port San Luis Harbor District
Cypress Lawn v. BART
Deutsche Bank v. Hashemi
Gallo Cattle v. Merced Irrigation District
HP Hood Enforcement Action
National Resources Defense Council v. Patterson, et al
Starrh Cotton Growers v. Aera Energy
Yamagiwa v. Half Moon Bay

(includes Wrongful Death)
Braun v. Hannig Law
Collins v. Houston Healthcare
Nguyen v. State of California
Young v. Crestwood Behavioral
Wells v. Good Samaritan Nursing

Oil & Gas
Teco Pipeline v. Valero Energy
US v. Koch Industries

Product Liability
Austin v. Fire-Lite Alarms/Notifier
Hinton v. Motor Coach Industries
Howard v. Ford Motor Co.

Securities & Financial
Clarent Securities Class Action
DR Management v. USA
EDS Class Action Securities Litigation
McKesson/Bear Stearns Securities Class Action
Wang, Citicorp v. Shen
Williams Companies Securities Class Action

White Collar Criminal
US v. Frank Peake (Horizon & SeaStar)
US v. Steven Leung (AU Optronics)
US v. Stonehill/Brooks