Perry J. Narancic focuses his practice on representing both businesses and individuals throughout the San Francisco Bay Area in technology, intellectual property and business matters, especially in trade secret, copyright, trademark, patent, securities and other business litigation. Perry has headed the legal departments at two NASDAQ-listed software companies, and has expertise in enterprise software and SaaS models. He has worked in content management, database, energy, accounting technologies, as well as consumer products. As a complement to his litigation practice, Perry also serves as outside general counsel to privately-held companies on a broad range of IP, counseling and licensing matters.
He is the listed inventor on US Patents 7,747,605 and 7,668,849 relating to data management.
Copyright Infringement, Breach of License Agreements
Represented plaintiff in BMMsoft, Inc. v. White Oaks Technology, Inc., No. 09-4562 (N.D. Cal. filed Sept. 8, 2009). Confidential settlement.
Represented plaintiff in Verity, Inc. v. CareerBuilder LLC, No. 03-CV-03911-JW (N.D. Cal. filed Nov. 11, 2004). Obtained judgment against defendant for breach of license agreement and copyright infringement.
Represented plaintiff in ICLUBcentral, Inc. v. Investclub, Inc. No. 03-CV-05782-SBA (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 22, 2003). Obtained settlement in favor of client on misappropriation of trade secrets and copyright infringement whereby infringing competitor exited the market.
Represented defendant/counter-plaintiff in Inxight Software v. Verity, Inc., No. 05-CV-01660-SC (N.D. Cal. filed April 21, 2005). Plaintiff’s case successful and Inxight’s claims settled.
Misappropriation of Trade Secrets, Confidentiality Agreements
Obtained judgment against AMD on behalf of plaintiff client in Business Applications Performance Corporation v. Advanced Micro Devices, No. 111-CV-203837 (Santa Clara County Sup. Crt., filed June 27, 2011).
Represented plaintiff in Entrust Administration, Inc. v. Davise, No. 06-CV-06427-JW (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 13, 2006). Obtained judgment and permanent injunctions against defendants.
PQ Labs, Inc. v. Zaagtech, Inc., Case No. CV-12-450 (N.D. Cal. Filed Jan. 27, 2012). Succeeded at trial in reducing damages award by over 90%, to low six-figures.
Represented plaintiff in obtaining full abandonment of trademark by defendants. iMatchative, Inc. v. Atlantic Fund Administration, Inc., Case No. 14-4750 (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 27, 2014)
Sensible Foods, LLC v. World Gourmet, Inc., No. 11-28119-SC (N.D. Cal. filed June 9, 2011). Confidential settlement.
Represented plaintiff in Langendorfer v. Nike, Inc., No. 09-3079 (N.D. Cal. filed July 8, 2009). Obtained judgment against Nike for willful trademark infringement.
Represented defendant in Microsoft Corporation v. OnlineNIC, Inc., No. 08-CV-04648 (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 7, 2008). Case voluntarily dismissed by Microsoft.
Cybersquatting case settled favorably. Verizon Communications, Inc. v. OnlineNIC, Inc., No. 08-2832 (N.D. Cal. filed June 6, 2008). Settled favorably.
Antitrust/ Unfair Competition
Prevailed on precedent-setting ruling on California pricing statute. Remainder of case settled confidentially. Bebe au Lait, LLC v. Mothers Lounge, LLC (N.D. Cal. Filed July 2, 2013).
Favorable ruling on motion for judgment in Bivo v. ICLUBcentral, Inc., (Boulder Count. Dist.) that non-disparagement agreement between competitors was per se illegal.
Successfully represented defendant Business Applications Performance Corporation in class action litigation in In re Intel Laptop Batter Litigation, No. 09-2889, (N.D. Cal. filed July 22, 2009), which was dismissed by pre-trial motion.
Represented plaintiff in Verity, Inc. v. Iphrase, Inc., No. 04-CV-04142-MEJ, (N.D. Cal. filed Sept. 29, 2004). Obtained favorable settlement for client.
Wide Eyes Marketing, Ltd. v. Aquawood, LLC, Case No. CV-11-3046, (C.D. Cal. filed April 1, 2011. Confidential settlement.
Seacloud Software, Inc. v. Reiner Associates, Inc., Case No. CV-12-1848, (N.D. Cal., filed April 13, 2012. Confidential settlement.
Obtained summary judgment on behalf of defendant client, knocking out 90% of plaintiff’s claims in a venture capital dispute on ownership of a company. Moore v. Bebe au Lait, LLC, No. 11-cv-176639 (Superior Court of Santa Clara County, filed July 12, 2010). Fully affirmed on appeal, Appeal No. H-037266 (6th Dist.)
Obtained favorable settlement for plaintiff client against a software vendor, where plaintiff alleged that defendant violated a marketing agreement by acquiring competitor. National Association of Investors Corp., v. Bivio., Inc., Case No. 10-567 (D. Col., filed March 10, 2010).
Successfully represented a venture fund named as a defendant in John Sylla v. Kataname, Inc. et al., No. CIV 449726 (San Mateo County Sup. Crt, filed September 20, 2005). Obtained dismissal of all claims against venture fund by pre-trial motion, while remaining defendants had judgment entered against them for $2.2 million. Also represented client on appeal, where trial ruling was affirmed. (Civil No. A130722, 1st Dist.)
Represented plaintiff in Kokka& Backus, PC v. DataScout, LLC, No. 10-110 RS (N.D. Cal. filed Jan 08, 2010) alleging that plaintiff’s client and its officers and directors breached their fiduciary duties to plaintiff as a creditor. Favorably settled for plaintiff.
Precedent Setting Victory in Below-Cost Pricing Case
Perry Narancic scored a big win in the US District Court for Northern California, in a case of first impression, where the court agreed that a competitor that distributes its products for “free” (but charges inflated shipping and handling fees), is subject to the California below-cost pricing laws under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17043. This was a case of first impression where the Court considered for the first time whether the cost of shipping a product should include the cost of shipping the product. The court found that an advertising that claimed to sell products for “free” was, on its faces, a sale below-cost – and that the cost of shipping should not be included in calculating “cost”. Bebe au Lait, LLC v. Mothers Lounge, LLC, Case No. 13-3035 (N.D. Cal. Filed July 2, 2013).
Perry Narancic Secures Multi-million Dollar Appeal Win
On April 23, 2013, Perry Narancic, founder of litigation boutique LexAnalytica, PC, secured a multi-million dollar win for his clients in the California Court of Appeal, in Moore v. Bebe au Lait, LLC, Case No. H037266 (6th Dist. ) The controversy involved an alleged oral promise of shares to a lender. Acting for defendants, Perry obtained summary judgment in the trial court on almost all the claims, and that order was fully affirmed by the Court of Appeal. The appeals courts also upheld a trial court ruling that plaintiff, a successful lawyer, charged a usurious rate of interest, in violation of the California Constitution.
Big Antitrust Win on Motion for Judgment
Perry Narancic scored a big antitrust win on behalf of his client, National Association of Investors Corp, in a Colorado action captioned Bivio v. ICLUBcentral, Inc., Case No. 11CV978 (Boulder Count. Dist.). That case arose out of a dispute around settlement terms from prior federal litigation between NAIC and Bivio. Perry successfully represented NAIC in that federal litigation, where Bivio agreed to pay NAIC substantial sums.
As part of the short form memorandum of settlement, the parties agreed to a non-disparagement clause, and to conclude a long-form agreement detailing the basic terms of settlement. However, Bivio took the position that the non-disparagement clause needed to be an absolute prohibition of any negative statements between Bivio and ICLUB (a Bivio competitor, and an NAIC subsidiary), even though Bivio and ICLUB controlled substantially all of the relevant market.
Bivio’s rushed to state court to seek a declaration that its position was right, but the State Court agreed with NAIC that any non-disparagement clause had an implied antitrust carve-out for truthful statements. In the absence of such a carve-out, Bivio would have successfully stifled advertising and other truthful statements in the relevant market.
Mergers & Acquisitions: Antitrust Issues in High-Tech and Emerging Growth Markets, in MERGERS & ACQUISITIONS, with Susan A. Creighton (Practicing Law Institute, May 1999).
Theories of Unilateral Anticompetitive Effects in High Technology Merger Enforcement in ANTITRUST ISSUES IN HIGH-TECH INDUSTRIES, with Charles T.C. Compton (American Bar Association, February 25-26, 1999).
Antitrust Counseling in Intellectual Property Transactions Involving Competitors, in INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY ANTITRUST, with Susan A. Creighton, (Practicing Law Institute, 1998).
University of California,
Berkeley, School of
Law, LL.M., concentration in intellectual property and antitrust.
LL.B. and B.C.L.
ADMITTED TO PRACTICE
State Bar of California
U.S. District Courts for the Northern District of California
Central District of California and the District of Colorado
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit
Standford University Law School, Stanford, CA
Lecturer in Law – Spring 2006
Securities Law. Introductory class in federal securities regulation, focusing on both black-letter law surrounding the issuance and trading of securities, and modern theories of regulation.*
Santa Clara University School of Law, Santa Clara, CA
Lecturer in Law – 2000 – Present
Technology and the Regulation of Competition: designed and taught an advanced course surveying the regulationof competition in technology markets (Summer and Fall 2000; offered annually since Fall 2003).
Representing The Public Technology Company: a course surveying the IPO process, reporting, accounting, and corporate governance issues for publicly traded technology companies (offered annually since Spring 2002).
Legal Problems of Start-up Businesses: a course surveying IP management, formation, tax and financing issues for start-up technology companies (Spring and Fall 2001).