Carr & Ferrell > Attorneys > Stuart C. Clark

Stuart C. Clark
Partner, Carr & Ferrell LLP
Co-Chair, Litigation Practice Group
650-812-3415 •

Stuart Clark is a partner in Carr & Ferrell’s Litigation Practice Group. Mr. Clark's practice focuses on business and intellectual property litigation, including patent, copyright and trademark infringement, unfair competition, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract and business torts.

Mr. Clark has litigated patent infringement cases involving a variety of arts and processes, including data compression techniques, medical device design, electronic circuitry, and semiconductor processes and products. In addition to patent cases, he has litigated several cases in the areas of copyright, trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breaches of license and other agreements, Internet issues and unfair competition.

Mr. Clark has tried jury and bench trials, and argued appeals, in both federal and state courts. Mr. Clark’s practice has also included mediation and arbitration. Mr. Clark serves as a Judicial Arbitrator of the Santa Clara County Superior Court.

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE

• Corcept v. Does - Represents pharmaceutical company Corcept, Inc. in this action for defamation against defendants who posted a series of anonymous statements defamatory of Corcept on a Yahoo Message Board. The matter is still pending.
• Philips v. Netblue, Inc. - Representing Internet marketing company Netblue, Inc. and certain of its officers in this action under the CAN-SPAM Act and the similar California statute. The case is currently awaiting trial.
• Schafer v. NetInformer, LLC – Represented NetInformer and its directors in this fraud and rescission action by an investor who, after paying part of the purchase price for a membership interest, refused to pay the balance of the investment, purported to rescind the subscription agreement, and sued for the return of what he had paid. The case was tried to a jury, which found in favor of NetInformer and its directors, and awarded judgment on the cross complaint for payment of the balance of the promised investment.
• Venstar, Inc. v. Atmel Corporation - Represented semiconductor manufacturer Atmel Corporation in defending against allegations of improperly designed and manufactured application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) for use in certain commercial heating, ventilating and air conditioning controls and devices. Following the filing of a summary judgment motion by Atmel, the plaintiff requested mediation of the dispute. The matter settled on confidential terms at the mediation.
• PeopleSoft U.S.A., Inc. v. Softek, Inc. - Represented software company PeopleSoft, Inc. in this breach of contract action for payment of license fees. Softek sought to avoid liability on the grounds of frustration of purpose, based on the allegation that the Softek customer for whom the software was intended to be used had decided not to proceed with its contract with Softek. After some initial discovery, PeopleSoft sought and obtained summary judgment, and the court (Hamilton, J) granted judgment on the grounds that as a matter of law Softek had no defense of frustration. This case is reported as PeopleSoft U.S.A., Inc. v. Softek, Inc., 227 F. Supp 2d 1116 (N. D. Cal 2002)
• Display Research Laboratories, Inc. v. Telegen Corporation - Represented display company Display Research Laboratories, Inc. (“DRL”) in this action for correction of inventorship on an issued patent, and other relief, and in opposition to a counterclaim for declaratory judgments with regard to inventorship on certain patent applications. DRL sought to dismiss the counterclaims under Rule 12(b)(6). The court (Illston, J) dismissed a number of counterclaims without leave to amend, and after some limited discovery the case settled on confidential terms after mediation. This case is reported as Display Research Laboratories, Inc. v. Telegen Corporation, 133 F. Supp 2d 1170 (N. D. Cal 2002)
• Affinity, Inc. v. Liverite, Inc. - Represented health product manufacturer Liverite in defending against claims under the Independent Wholesale Sales Representatives Contractual Relations Act and for breach of contract, and in cross claiming for misappropriation of trade secrets and various business torts. The case was tried to a jury, and after three weeks of trial the parties were able to reach a confidential settlement.
• Atmel Corporation v. ProMerge, Inc. - Represented semiconductor manufacturer Atmel Corporation in defending against claims under the Independent Wholesale Sales Representatives Contractual Relations Act and for breach of contract, and in cross claiming for breaches of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, and breaches of fiduciary duty. The case settled on confidential terms after commencement of a jury trial.
• Advanced Stent Technologies, Inc. v. Conor Medsystems - Represented medical device manufacturer Advanced Stent Technologies, Inc. in this action for infringement on a patent for a medical stent device. The case settled on confidential terms after initial early neutral evaluation.
• Patterson v. Advanced Polymer Systems, Inc. - Represented polymer manufacturer Advanced Polymer Systems, Inc. in defending this action for a declaratory judgment that plaintiff was entitled to be reflected as the inventor on certain patents owned by Advanced Polymer Systems. Judgment was entered for Advanced Polymer Systems following a bench trial.

OTHER REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE

• Shelfbond A.G., Inc. v. Altura & Company (First District Court of Appeal)(Reported in 2004 WL 2980568)
• Holtz v. Conexant Systems, Inc.: (U. S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit): Appeal Fed. Appx 470, 2002 WL31875667