Case Tested

At Miclean Gleason, we handle all stages of litigation. We have successfully tried cases before judges and juries throughout the country, as well as before administrative bodies and arbitration panels. At the appellate level, we have successfully briefed and argued cases before numerous appellate courts.


Serving each client with clarity, efficiency, and conviction.

Representative Cases Handled By The Attorneys Miclean Gleason.


Dolby Laboratories Licensing Corp. v. ArcSoft, Inc.  No. 12-CV-230794, Santa Clara County Superior Court.
Dolby sued ArcSoft for breach of numerous licenses for use of Dolby audio technology in ArcSoft software. ArcSoft cross-complained against Dolby for unfair competition, breach of contract, and breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing. After three years of litigation, and on the doorstep of trial, the Firm resolved the case in a successful, confidential settlement.

Cintel Systems, Inc. v. Rahman. No. 12-CV-230794, Santa Clara County Superior Court.
The Firm successfully defended Defendant in a breach of contract, fraud suit brought by Plaintiff buyer of Defendant’s consulting business. After arbitration, Defendant received a complete defense verdict from the arbitrator.

Fusion Sourcing Group, Inc. v. Delta Products Corp. No. RG-16-832002, Alameda County Superior Court. The Firm was brought in as trial counsel to try a breach of representative agreement action filed by a former manufacturing representative company. The case resolved shortly before trial.

Segall v. Siegler. No. 17-CIV-00129, San Mateo County Superior Court. The Firm was brought in as trial counsel for Defendant/Cross-Complainant in a complicated action/cross-action arising out of a partner breakup of a security service consulting company. The Firm brought a settlement plan to the multiple parties and counsel and shepherded the case to a comprehensive resolution before trial.

Wellex Corp. v. Nvidia Corp.; Fabrinet. No. 16-CV-299320, Santa Clara County Superior Court. After five successful demurrers to Plaintiff’s complaint for interference with contract and prospective economic advantage, the Firm obtained a dismissal from the action filed by a former prototype fabricator for Nvidia Corporation.

Kantor v. BigTip, Inc.; Bremer. No. 2:15-cv-01871-RAJ, U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington. The Firm represented a former CFO sued for fraud and breach of fiduciary duty by former investors to a failed online startup. After discovery and aggressive motion practice, the Firm obtained a dismissal before trial.

Van Vuuren v. Chung. No. 16-CV-295158, Santa Clara County Superior Court. The Firm represented a venture capital partner in a suit against his former partner in a $100 million fund which invested in startups incubated at Harvard and MIT. The suit alleged fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, and 11 other causes of action. After a successful defense against multiple demurrers, the case was successfully resolved for the client.

Li v. Headwaters Holdings, LLC. No. 01-15-0002-3737, American Arbitration Association. The Firm represented a former partner of a trading company specializing in index trading, against former partners for a breach of contract. The Defendant partners cross-complained for trade secret misappropriation and breach of fiduciary duty. The case was tried in a three-day arbitration before a three-arbitrator panel from AAA. The panel issued a judgment in favor of the client for $3.5 million in damages and attorneys’ fees. Defendants recovered nothing on their cross-complaint.

Iddings v. Kohlberg. No. CIV-533938, San Mateo County Superior Court. The Firm represented James Kohlberg and Kohlberg Ventures in a former employee’s suit for breach of employment contract arising from a power cell company bankruptcy. After Plaintiff’s deposition, which revealed credibility issues and weak damage claims, the case was successfully resolved by a confidential settlement agreement.

DaVinci Consulting v. Minerva Networks, Inc. No. CGC-13-535546, San Francisco County Superior Court. The Firm represented the Plaintiff in a business dispute over consulting fees that Defendant did not pay. The case was successfully resolved for the client.




Yardley v. Advanced Neuro Dynamics, Inc. (Resolved without complaint.) The Firm successfully obtained the author’s copyright and other rights from a licensee.


Banko v. Apple, Inc. No. CV 13-02977 RS, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. The Firm successfully represented the project manager of iPad in a wrongful termination suit against Apple. The case was successfully resolved in a confidential settlement agreement.


Fit Bags, Inc. v. Fit Style, Inc. No. 3:16-cv-07262-SK, U.S. District Court, Northern District of California. The firm brought and resolved two patent litigations filed against Defendants related to a meal compartment fitness bag patent.


Hasbro, Inc. v. ASUS Computer Int’l, Inc. No. CV11-10437-PSG, U.S. District Court, Central District of California. The Firm successfully opposed Hasbro’s preliminary injunction motion arising out of ASUS’s use “transformer” to describe its tablet that converted to a laptop computer. The case was successfully resolved with a comprehensive settlement agreement shortly after the favorable injunction ruling.

Bee Sweet Citrus v. Ulmer. No. 1:15-cv-01068-BAM, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California. Bee Sweet Citrus, one of the largest active growers/distributors in the U.S., sued Bee Sweet Lemonade for trademark infringement. The case was successfully resolved with Defendants.

Catalyst Mortgage, Inc. v., LLC. No. 34-2017-00217897, Sacramento County Superior Court. The Firm currently represents against trademark infringement and phishing allegations.

Snap Inc. v. Grand. No. D2017-0495, World Intellectual Property Organization Arbitration, and Mediation Center. The Firm successfully opposed Snap Inc.’s (the owner of Snapchat) attempt to force the Firm’s clients to turn over their geofilter domain in WIPO’s UDRP procedure. The Firm is currently representing the clients in opposing Snap’s mark applications in TTAB.

Crealock v. Crealock Demonstrations & Development, Ltd. No. 15-cv-1934-GPC, U.S. District Court, Southern District of California. The Firm successfully represented the widow of famed yacht designer Bill Crealock in a case against the Defendant boat device manufacturer misusing the Crealock name in connection with a product. The firm confirmed posthumous name and license rights to the Crealock name for the estate and compelled an injunction and damages in a comprehensive resolution for the client.

Trade Secret/Business

Alfinito v. Ruwaldt – No. 1:17-cv-11452-RMB, U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey. The Firm represented SRCE, Inc. and Rudy Alfinito who provided intellectual property and original drawings of the famed Papp Engine to Defendant in efforts to review and develop the green Papp Engine which ran on a combination of five noble gases. The Papp IP was returned to the client and the case was successfully resolved.

Pro Bono

Renouard v. Wong. No. 16-CV-297954, Santa Clara County Superior Court. In a pro bono matter, the Firm took on representation of a homeowner defrauded by a VRBO guest who, against agreement, held a post-prom party at the client’s home for over 100 teenagers who trashed the home in a drug- and alcohol-fueled “party” where kids were beaten up and a female sexually assaulted. The Firm successfully sued Defendant, received a $55,000 settlement, and worked with the Santa Cruz County District Attorney to get a felony conviction of Defendant.

Teamwork helps keep us – A Notch Above

This website Is designed for general Information only. The information presented at this site should not be construed to be formal legal advice nor the formation of a lawyer/client relationship.