Two Embarcadero Center Suite 1900, San Francisco, CA USA 94111
Wes Overson is known for his focused and strategic approach to case analysis, which has led to many successes in both trials and arbitrations. Wes has tried several major intellectual property disputes in court and has acted as lead counsel in over 20 domestic and international arbitrations in venues around the globe, achieving overwhelmingly positive results. His cases span all subject areas, but he has a particular focus on the technology and life sciences sectors. Wes represents a broad range of clients, including database providers, GPS innovators, surgical device makers, pharmaceutical and biotechnology organizations, and consumer product manufacturers.
Prior to joining the firm, Wes was a partner in the San Francisco, California office of an international law firm where he was head of its Litigation Department for over seven years and focused his practice on intellectual property and other commercial litigation involving complex issues. Most notably, Wes and his team achieved a complete defense victory for their client, a leading healthcare and medical products company, in the landmark Therasense case. This “rare instance” of winning an inequitable-conduct defense resulted in the case being listed as a “Top Defense Win” by the San Francisco Daily Journal. After trial, the Federal Circuit remanded the inequitable-conduct case after establishing new, higher standards of proof. On remand, Wes and his team’s client won again.
Wes was recognized as a Northern California “Super Lawyer” for Intellectual Property Litigation from 2015-2019 by Super Lawyers magazine. He was also the recipient of a CLAY (California Attorney of the Year) Award by The Daily Journal in 2013 for his jury trial win against the Fresno Police Department relating to the shooting of an unarmed man.
Experience
Represented adidas AG, adidas North America, Inc., adidas America, Inc., and adidas International Trading AG in patent infringement and importation investigation at ITC brought by Nike, Inc., related to the design and manufacture of shoe uppers for knitted footwear, with related action in Oregon federal court. One of the largest patent cases in the footwear industry, the case involved nine U.S. patents from multiple distinct families of patents, each covering a different subject matter. After completing both fact and expert discovery, the case was settled on confidential terms shortly before the evidentiary hearing at the ITC. In re Certain Knitted Footwear, U.S. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1289; Nike, Inc. v. adidas AG et al., No. 3:21-cv-01780 (D. Or.)
*Won jury trial for a leading public research university system in a dispute regarding strawberry breeding and plant patent rights. Obtained jury verdict in client's favor of conversion and patent infringement by defendants.
*Won a 2019 arbitration involving the meaning of a long term supply contract. The parties disputed the impact of a third parties’ actions on pricing terms under the contract. Wes’s client won on the merits, with an eight-figure impact to the bottom line, and also received a fee award.
*Achieved a nine-figure settlement for a biotech company asserting its patents on a diagnostic test for HIV. The case settled after closing arguments in the arbitration.
*Defended client’s termination of a licensing agreement in a dispute in the biotech space. After a full hearing on both patent and contract issues, the ICC panel found Wes’s client to be the prevailing party in the matter.
*Won an arbitration involving claims arising out of the purchase of a technology company. The client had failed to pay the full purchase price. Wes counterclaimed that the IP rights of the company had been misrepresented. After the hearing, the arbitrator ruled in favor of the client’s counterclaims, including an award of attorneys’ fees.
*Defended a trade secret and licensing claim in which the claimant was seeking more than $30 million. Wes’s client counterclaimed and ultimately obtained a net damages award in its favor, along with significant injunctive relief. The counterclaim strategy led to a settlement, netting the client more than $50 million.
*Scored a complete victory for a multinational pharmaceutical corporation accused of infringing several of its competitor’s patents. In addition to the direct product competition at the heart of the dispute, the potential damages were well into the nine-figure range. After a two-week hearing, Wes’s client prevailed on every patent.
*Obtained the first preliminary injunction under the Americans with Disabilities Act ordering a preschool to train its staff to accommodate a boy with asthma in the Northern District of California.
*Successfully defended a medical laser company facing IP-related allegations in a three-month jury trial in Silicon Valley in Santa Clara Superior Court.
*Experience gained by attorney prior to joining Kilpatrick
Insights View All
University of California, Hastings College of the Law J.D. (1991) cum laude
Reed College B.A. (1988)
California (1991)
Bar Association of San Francisco, Litigation Section, former Executive Committee, Member
Bar Association of San Francisco, Civility Committee, former Chair
Practical Law Company, Advisory Board, Member
Disclaimer
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.
