dbergeson@be-law.com
vCard download

Admitted to bar: 1982, California; 2002, District of Columbia; 2003, New York.

Education: University of Michigan (J.D., 1982); The Honors College at Michigan State University (B.A., 1978, summa cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa).

Clerkship: Law Clerk to Hon. Samuel Conti, U.S. District Court Judge, Northern District of California, 1983–1984.

Member: American Bar Association; Santa Clara County Bar Association; San Francisco County Bar Association; State Bar of California; Palo Alto Bar Association; Association of Business Trial Lawyers; American Trial Lawyers Association; New York Bar Association; and District of Columbia Bar Association.

Daniel J. Bergeson is the founding partner of Bergeson, LLP. He is admitted to practice in all California Courts, all of the United States District Courts in California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court. His expertise encompasses all aspects of a business trial practice with an emphasis in securities and intellectual property litigation. He has extensive experience in defending securities class action and derivative lawsuits. He has conducted numerous investigations on behalf of special litigation committees and audit committees. He has also represented officers and directors in internal investigations and SEC interviews. Mr. Bergeson also has represented companies in patent, copyright, trade secrets, and trademark litigation. He has litigated cases in Texas, Delaware, New York, Washington, Tennessee, and the District of Columbia.

Mr. Bergeson received his J.D. from the University of Michigan in 1982. After completing a clerkship with the Honorable Samuel Conti, U.S. District Court Judge, Northern District of California, he joined the litigation department of Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati in Palo Alto, California. He left Wilson, Sonsini in 1990 to form the firm now known as Bergeson, LLP.

Mr. Bergeson has represented numerous companies and individuals in a wide variety of significant litigation matters. His reported cases include: Scognamillo, et al., v. Credit Suisse First Boston LLC, et al., Case No. C03-02061, 2005 WL 2045807 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 25, 2005); Schuster v. Gardner, et al., 127 Cal App. 4th 305 (2005); Friese v. The Superior Court of San Diego County, No. D046348, 2005 WL 3249442 (December 2, 2005); Gator.com Corp. v. L.L. Bean, Inc., 398 F.3d 1125 (9th Cir. 2005); Gaia Offshore Master Fund, Ltd. v. Hawkins, 2004 WL 2496142 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 05, 2004); Gaylinn v. 3Com Corp., 185 F. Supp. 2d 1054 (N.D. Cal. 2000); Securities and Exchange Commission v. Truong, 98 F. Supp. 2d 1086, Fed. Sec.L.Rep. P 90, 955 (N.D. Cal. 2000); In re Worlds of Wonder Securities Litigation, 35 F. 3d 1407 (9th Cir. 1994); Steinhardt Partners, et al. v. Smith Barney, et al., 716 F. Supp. 93 (S.D.N.Y. 1989); In re Worlds of Wonder Securities Litigation, 694 F. Supp. 1427 (N.D. Cal. 1988); In re Valence Technology Securities Litigation, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21773 (N.D. Cal. 1996); In re Verbatim Securities Litigation, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16406 (N.D. Cal. 1985).

Mr. Bergeson serves as a faculty member for the National Institute for Trial Advocacy's deposition and trial advocacy programs. He has served as a member of the Mediation Panel for the United States District Court, Northern District of California, since 1998. He also serves as an arbitrator.

Mr. Bergeson is among an elite group selected for inclusion in the 2008 edition of Best Lawyers in America^® in the specialties of intellectual property law and corporate law. Mr. Bergeson is consistently listed among Silicon Valley’s Top Attorneys in San Jose Magazine, and has been named as one of the Best Lawyers in the Bay Area by Bay Area Lawyer Magazine. He was featured by United Airlines in its "Special Tribute To America's Best Lawyers" in its Sky Radio Network Business Program and is featured in an interview with the Wall Street Reporter.^® Mr. Bergeson has received the highest peer review rating for ethical standards and legal ability from Martindale-Hubbell. He also has been named to the 2004, 2005, 2006, and 2007 "Northern California Super Lawyers®" list as compiled by Law & Politics. The Super Lawyers^® list consists of the top five percent of attorneys in Northern California based on peer nomination and research.

Representative litigation includes:

SECURITIES ACTIONS

Glidden, et al. v. SkillSoft PLC (fka SmartForce PLC), et al., Case No. C-04-4913-CRB, United States District Court for the Northern District of California. The firm represented SkillSoft PLC (fka SmartForce PLC) and two of its officers in an action arising out of the merger of IC Global Corporation with SmartForce PLC. Plaintiffs alleged fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims.

Scognamillo, et al. v. Credit Suisse First Boston LLC, et al., Case No. C03-02061 (TEH), 2005 WL645466, United States District Court for the Northern District of California. This case involves allegations of stock price manipulation by investment bankers in connection with an Initial Public Offering. The firm represents the former Chief Financial Officer of Netcentives, Inc. whose stock is alleged to have been manipulated. The Court granted the motion to dismiss filed by Bergeson, LLP, dismissing the action with prejudice against the former CFO of Netcentives.

Mudgett v. Chemoil Corp., et al., San Francisco County Superior Court Case No. 321977. The Court granted Defendants' motion for summary judgment. The firm represented four companies and three individual directors in a case alleging promissory fraud, breach of fiduciary duty regarding sale of company assets, and rescission. The Court of Appeal for the State of California, First Appellate District, affirmed the trial court's order.

United States of America v. Frank Quattrone, Case No. 03CR582 (RO), United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. The firm represented a testifying witness called during the trial of Frank P. Quattrone on charges of obstruction and witness tampering related to a U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission investigation of Credit Suisse First Boston LLC and its allocation of shares in IPOs it underwrote.

Cohen, et al. v. Chang, et al., Case No. CV418937, San Mateo County Superior Court. The firm represented Wen-Chang Ko, one of the directors of Clarent Corporation, in this derivative action.

In re S3 Securities Litigation, Master File No. CV770003, Santa Clara County Superior Court. The firm represented S3's former Chief Financial Officer, George Hervey. The plaintiffs alleged violations of California Corporations Code sections 25400 and 25500 against S3 - a manufacturer of graphic accelerator computer chips and related software - and 11 of its officers and directors, as well as its former auditors.

In re InaCom Corporation Securities Litigation, Master File No. 00-701 (JJF) United States District Court for the District of Delaware. The firm represented the former Chairman of the Board of InaCom in this security class action filed in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Sections 11, 12(a)(2), and 15 of the Securities Act, and Sections 10(b), 20(a) and 14(a) of the Exchange Act, and Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act. The gravamen of the Consolidated Amended Complaint was that defendants concealed from the investing public that InaCom was experiencing financial and operating difficulties which were adversely impacting InaCom's revenue and profits, as well as its relationships with clients and customers.

Gaylinn v. 3Com Corporation, et al., Master File No. C99-2185-MMC (United States District Court for the Northern District of California). The firm served as local counsel for the Chicago law firm of Sachnoff & Weaver, Ltd. in representing Casey G. Cowell, Vice Chairman of the Board and consultant to 3Com Corporation. Plaintiffs in this securities class action allege violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5 against 3Com Corporation, a company that sells computer networking products, including switches, hubs, and routers ("Enterprise System products"), network interface cards ("NICs"), and modems ("Client Access products"), and certain of its officers and directors. Plaintiffs' Consolidated Second Amended Complaint, the operative complaint in the case, alleged that 3Com's officers and directors made material misrepresentations with regard to 3Com's Enterprise Systems Products (including its CoreBuilder 7000 switch and CoreBuilder 9000 switch), inventory controls and business model in order to artificially inflate the company's stock and engage in insider trading. Having granted an earlier motion to dismiss with leave to amend, United States District Judge Maxine Chesney granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend and with prejudice. The case is currently on appeal before the Ninth Circuit.

In re Cylink Securities Litigation, 274 F.Supp.2d 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2003). The firm represented the Company's former Vice President of Sales and Marketing. Plaintiffs in this action alleged that the defendants, Cylink Corporation, a company devoted to securing e-business solutions for Fortune 500 companies, multinational finance institutions and governmental agencies worldwide, Fernand B. Sarrat, Cylink's former President and Chief Executive Officer, John Daws, Cylink's former Chief Financial Officer and Vice President of Finance, Tom Butler, Cylink's former Vice President of Sales and Marketing, and the company's board of directors violated Section 10(b) of the Exchange Act and Rule 10(b)(5). Plaintiffs further alleged the individual defendants violated Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act. In their Amended Complaint, plaintiffs contended that during the relevant period, defendants caused Cylink to publicly materially overstate revenues as a result of reckless and improper revenue recognition practices.

In re YES! Entertainment Corporation Securities Litigation, 1998 WL 667863, Case No. C97-1388-CRB (N.D. Cal. 1998).

Miller v. YES! Entertainment, et al., Case No. V-0136747, Alameda County Superior Court.

Wang v. YES! Entertainment, et al., Case No. V-13287-9, Alameda County Superior Court.

In these actions, the firm was lead defense counsel with Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, and represented all of the YES! defendants. The firm filed four successful demurrers to the state court complaints, and a successful motion to dismiss to the federal complaint, after which the firm was able to achieve a favorable settlement of all three cases for a total amount of $2.25 million. This settlement was reached before any substantive discovery could be taken. Potential damages in the case exceeded $60 million.

Walsh v. Carrington (IMP, Inc. derivative action), Case No. C-97-20238-SW (PVT) (N.D. Cal.). In this action, the firm represented a special litigation committee that assessed the derivative action filed against the Company's officers and directors. The derivative action settled in which no money was paid and the Company agreed to consider certain prophylactic measures in its insider trading policy. The firm assisted in writing the Company's new insider trading policy.

In re Seagate Technology II Securities Litigation, 98 F.3d 1346 (9th Cir. 1996); 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 38601.

In re Seagate Technology II Securities Litigation, [1995] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 98,530 (N.D. Cal. 1995); 1995 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 2052.

In re Seagate Technology II Securities Litigation, [1990] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 95,427 (N.D. Cal. 1990); 1990 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 14056.

In re Seagate Technology II Securities Litigation, [1989] Fed. Sec. L. Rep. (CCH) 94,502 (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1989); 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10466. The firm was co-counsel with Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati, representing all of the Seagate defendants. The firm’s attorneys had extensive involvement in the preliminary motions and discovery process throughout the case. In addition to authoring successful motions to dismiss portions of the complaint at the pleading stage, the firm authored the final summary judgment motion which the District Court granted in favor of all of the Seagate defendants. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's summary judgment on the basis of appellate briefing which the firm played the leading role in preparing.

In re Valence Technology Securities Litigation, U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21773 (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1996). The firm represented Alan Shugart, at the time the President, Chief Executive Officer and Chairman of the Board of Seagate Technology, who was an outside director of Valence. The firm filed successful motions to dismiss which ultimately resulted in the final dismissal, with prejudice, of all claims against Mr. Shugart before any costly discovery could be taken.

Shugart v. CAOC, et al., Case No. M34316, Monterey County Superior Court. The firm represented Alan Shugart in this libel action arising out of the political campaign wars over securities law and tort reform. The defendants (the California Trial Lawyers' Association and their political consultants) had broadcast an infamous television advertisement which equated Mr. Shugart with Charles Keating by, among other things, visually "morphing" Mr. Keating's photo into a photo of Mr. Shugart, and vice versa. In addition to asserting First Amendment defenses, the defendants set out to try to prove that Mr. Shugart had, in fact, engaged in securities law violations. The firm successfully prosecuted Mr. Shugart's claims before the Superior Court, the Court of Appeal, and the California Supreme Court, defeating the defendants' attempts to have the action dismissed or thrown out on summary judgment. Faced with having to go to trial, the defendants agreed to publish a written apology to Mr. Shugart in all of the major California newspapers (at a cost of approximately $150,000), and to contribute an additional $350,000 to charities designated by Mr. Shugart.

In re Worlds of Wonder Securities Litigation, 35 F.3d 1407 (9th Cir. 1994). The firm’s attorneys were co-counsel with Wilson, Sonsini, Goodrich & Rosati and represented the Company's former CEO, CFO, and President. In Worlds of Wonder, the firm successfully obtained summary judgment for the directors and officers at the District Court level on the basis of the "bespeaks caution" doctrine. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the lower court's decision. Prior to this case, the Ninth Circuit had not adopted the "bespeaks caution" doctrine.

In re Industrial Funding Corporation, Case No. C92-0343-THE (United States District Court for the Northern District of California). The firm represented the former Chief Financial Officer of Industrial Funding who had been named as a third party defendant by the underwriters in a fraud and indemnification action. The underwriters filed the action only months before trial of the underlying class action securities case. The firm aggressively responded to the third party complaint, and immediately commenced taking key discovery from the underwriters. The firm’s efforts were instrumental in achieving a favorable resolution of both the securities class action and the third party action.

S&A Biotech Investments, LLC v. Thomas Baruch, et al., Case No. CV797835, Santa Clara County Superior Court. In this derivative action, the firm represented four of the individual defendant directors of nominal defendant Rodenstock North America, Inc. ("RNA"). Plaintiff alleged that the individual defendant directors of RNA breached fiduciary duties to RNA and its shareholders by voting in favor of a settlement between RNA and ACLARA Biosciences, Inc. ("ACLARA") relating to the re-sale of ACLARA shares to ACLARA. Plaintiff dismissed the action against the individual defendant directors without any payment to Plaintiff.

INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ACTIONS

TRS Consultants, Inc. v. Rick Shi, et al., Case No. C-04-02171 JSW (2004) (copyright/trade secrets);

Excambria, Inc. v. Enable Solutions, Inc., Case No. CO3-03236BZ (2003) (trade secrets);

West Valley Engineering, Inc. v. Nicholas Schichtle, Case No. CV801705 (2001), Santa Clara County Superior Court (trade secrets);

Network Commerce, Inc. v. Preview Systems, Case No. C-00-1790, Western District of Washington (patent);

Unither Pharma, Inc. and The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University v. Herbalife Int’l, Inc., Case No. 03-5090JW, Northern District of California (patent);

Seagate Technology LLC v. Atmel Corporation, et al., Case No. CV809883, Santa Clara County Superior Court (semiconductor chip defect litigation);

America Online, Inc. v. Tribal Voice, Inc., Case No. 99-20434-JW ENE, Northern District of California (trademark);

Animatics Corporation v. Quicksilver Controls, Inc., Case No. C-99 05155 WHH, Northern District of California (patent);

RPG Music International Limited and Gramophone Company of India Limited v. Ghazal International, Case No. C-99-20106SW PVT, Northern District of California (trademark cases);

LG Semicon Co., Ltd. et al. v. NEC Corporation, et al., Case No. C-98-03624 EDL, Northern District of California (patent);

Pearson v. Quickturn Design Systems, et al., Case No. C-97-20907, Northern District of California (copyright/trade secrets);

20/20 Software, Inc. v. Preview Software, Inc., Case No. 97-1355, District of Oregon (trade secrets);

Oki Electric Industry Co., Ltd. v. LG Semicon Co., Ltd., et al., Case No. C-97-20310 (SW), Northern District of California (patent);

Molex Inc. v. Foxconn International, Inc., Case No. C-97-20107, Northern District of California and Case No. 97-C-0739, Northern District of Illinois (patent);

Mediatek Inc. v. Oak Technology, Inc., Case No. C-97 21126 RMW, Northern District of California (patent);

Lattice Semiconductor Corporation v. Tan, et al., Case No. C-95-20833, Northern District of California (copyright);

NSA International, Inc. v. Intelligy Corp., et al., Case No. 94-2969, Western District of Tennessee (copyright);

Scientific Technologies, Inc. v. Pinnacle Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. C-94-3509, Northern District of California (patent);

Charles Evans & Associates v. Accurel Systems International Corp., et al., Case No. CV 772301, Santa Clara County Superior Court (misappropriation of trade secrets);

Amalar Inc. v. Thermo-Fusion, et al., Case No. CV781303, Santa County Superior Court (misappropriation of trade secrets);

Stanford Telecommunications, Inc. v. Advanced Broadband Communications, Inc., Case No. CV784108, Santa Clara County Superior Court (misappropriation of trade secrets);

Adaptec, Inc. v. Brocade Communications Systems, Inc., Case No. CV789393, Santa Clara Superior Court (misappropriation of trade secrets and employee solicitation).