close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


Nike Makes Case to the Supreme Court

November 07, 2012

​Jed Wakefield, chair of Fenwick’s Trademark Litigation group, was quoted in two articles, “Nike Makes Case to the Supreme Court” in the Portland Business Journal and “Justices Eye Nike’s Deal Not to Sue in Trademark Case” in Law360.

On November 7, the Supreme Court heard oral arguments in a three-year-old case involving a trademark dispute between Nike and Already LLC (Already LLC v. Nike Inc.). The case dates back to 2009 when Nike filed a trademark infringement suit against Already and its Yums footwear brand, alleging the company was infringing on Nike’s trademarked Air Force 1 footwear design.

Yums proceeded to file a counterclaim, attempting to invalidate the trade dress registration. Nike then withdrew its claim and issued a covenant not to sue, but Yums still pursued their attempts to cancel Nike’s registration.

Nike has prevailed in the lower courts, and now the Supreme Court is considering whether accused infringers can still challenge a trademark's validity after the owner agrees not to sue.

Wakefield said the case has received significant attention from intellectual property groups out of the fear that a ruling against Nike could pave the way for frivolous lawsuits against trademark or patent holders. “The risk would involve the potential for increases in opportunistic strike-suit claims, where a party could say, ‘I’m going to challenge the validity of your patent even though you’ve never threatened me with it, unless you pay me’,” Wakefield said.

He said the likelihood of that outcome is remote, but the specter of its possibility was enough to compel groups such as the American Intellectual Property Law Association and the International Trademark Association to file Amicus briefs in the case.

But Wakefield said the company's argument all along has been that companies in Yums’ situation can always request that a trademark be canceled with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, offering an adequate alternative outside of the venue of a courtroom.

According to Wakefield, the detailed questions about the specific covenant in this case during oral argument suggest that the justices may be taking a more limited view. “The decision might be very narrowly tailored to the nature of that covenant and whether it adequately provided assurance to Already that it would not be sued again," he said. "In that case, I would not expect a broad, sweeping opinion that would unsettle people's expectations about declaratory judgment standards."​