1. Home
  2. People
  3. Shaffer, Nathan

Nathan Shaffer

Partner

San Francisco

Nathan Shaffer represents technology clients in high-stakes litigation.

Nathan represents leading technology companies and achieves results in cases where their most valuable assets are on the line. Nathan’s practice includes federal and state court litigation with an equal split between plaintiff and defense-side representations. He has obtained multiple preliminary injunctions for his clients, won dispositive motions, and represented his clients on appeal.

Nathan focuses on issues at the intersection of high technology and intellectual property law. He regularly represents and counsels clients in disputes involving software licensing, emerging aspects of trademark and copyright law, IP ownership, disputes involving technology products and IP, and open-source licensing.

As a trade secret litigator, Nathan has protected his clients’ intellectual property in fast-paced scenarios involving emergency forensic investigations followed closely by obtaining temporary restraining orders and injunctions.

Prior to joining Orrick, Nathan served as a law clerk to Judge Dorothy W. Nelson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and Judge John A. Mendez of the Eastern District of California.

    • hiQ Labs, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corporation (N.D. Cal.). Nathan represented LinkedIn in this data scraping case against hiQ Labs and its counsel Quinn Emanuel. Orrick came onto the case after several years of litigation, dissolved hiQ’s preliminary injunction, won summary judgment on all of hiQ’s claims, and won a finding of liability in LinkedIn’s favor in the same order. The case resolved in a consent judgment weeks after judgment was entered.
    • Anthrop, LLC v. Anthropic, PBC (D. Ariz.). Nathan represented Anthropic, a company building the future of safe AI, in a suit brought by a Texas company alleging trademark infringement.
    • SPINS LLC v. Satori Technology LLC (C.D. Cal). Nathan represented SPINS in this contested trademark litigation that resulted in a stipulated injunction against Defendant Satori Technology. 
    • A Global Leader in Aircraft Investments v. Babcock & Brown LLC et al (D. Conn.). Nathan represents a global leader in aircraft investments in a trademark infringement litigation against four defendants who started using Babcock & Brown's trademark.
    • Frenzy Technologies, Inc. v. Whop, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.). Nathan represented Frenzy in a litigation alleging violations of the Computer Fraud & Abuse Act and related torts against competitor Whop.
    • NCS Pearson v. Trading Diem, et al. (C.D. Cal.). Nathan represented Pearson VUE in this computer trespass/unauthorized use litigation against a competitor and its investigations firm.
    • ExamWorks v. Baldini, et al. (E.D. Cal.). Nathan represented ExamWorks, obtaining a temporary restraining order, expedited discovery, and a preliminary injunction against the defendants.
    • 250ok, Inc. v. Message Systems, Inc. (Del. Chanc.). Nathan led Message Systems to an early win in this misappropriation case by successfully moving to dismiss the plaintiff's unjust enrichment claim on preemption grounds.
    • Blizzard Entertainment v. Joyfun (C.D. Cal.). Represented Joyfun in a video game copyright infringement litigation.
    • Couchbase v. Redis Labs, et al. (Santa Clara, CA). Represented Couchbase in a trade secrets case involving multiple departing employees and a direct competitor. In this hard-fought cause, the Orrick team successfully defeated a defendants’ summary judgment motion and obtained multiple fee awards.
    • DISH Network & Sling TV v. Asia TV, et al. (S.D.N.Y.). Represented DISH and Sling TV with respect to copyright issues raised in this commercial litigation involving a suite of television channels.
    • Humu v. Hulu (N.D. Cal.). Represented Humu in seeking a declaration that it does not infringe Hulu’s trademark.
    • HVMN v. Human to the Power of N Company (N.D. Cal.). Represented H.V.M.N. in seeking a declaration that it does not infringe HumanN’s trademark.
    • Trademark Counterfeiting Litigation (N.D. Cal.). Represented a leading electronics manufacturer in litigation that dismantled a nationwide counterfeiting ring.
    • Hill-Rom, Inc. v. Tellisense et al. (S.D. Ind.). Nathan represented the Helvetia Defendants in this suit alleging trade secret misappropriation and related business torts arising from technology developed for the healthcare market.
    • Carillo v. Autobuses de Oriente (D. Col.). Defended ADO’s UDRP win over the ado.com domain name in district court litigation.
    • Oracle v. Google (N.D. Cal.). Represented Oracle in its copyright case against Google.
    • Quest Software, Inc. v. Nike, Inc. (D. Or.). Counsel for Quest in this software copyright infringement case alleging that one of the nation’s largest retail companies engaged in widespread unauthorized installation and use of Quest’s software in running its business.
    • AARC v. DENSO Int’l Am., Inc. et al. (D.D.C.). Represented audio system supplier DENSO in this Audio Home Recording Act challenge to in-dash devices brought by the music industry. The team obtained summary judgment in DENSO’s favor and consolidated the win by successfully defeating the appeal to the D.C. Circuit.

Insights

Events

News