This site makes use of Javascript, please enable your web browser to allow Javascript. Thank you.
Peter  Root

Peter Root

Intellectual Property Department

Silicon Valley
T: +1 650 319 4506
F: +1 650 319 4700

icon Download vCard

Legal Services


  • University of California, Berkeley School of Law (Boalt Hall)
    JD, 1989, Order of the Coif
  • University of Pennsylvania
    BA, cum laude, 1977

Bar Admission(s)

  • California
  • California Supreme Court
  • All Lower California Courts
  • US Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit
  • US District Court, Northern District of California
  • US District Court, Central District of California
  • US District Court, Southern District of California
  • US Tax Court, U.S. Court of Federal Claims

Peter Root focuses on complex business and commercial litigation with an emphasis on intellectual property and technology matters. Peter was recently recognized as an “IP Star” by Managing IP Handbook 2014-2016, and is recommended by The Legal 500 United States 2015 and Who’s Who Legal 2013, 2014 and 2016.

As both trial and appellate counsel, Peter has handled a wide variety of civil litigation matters in federal and state court, including patent infringement and other intellectual property disputes, securities class and mass actions, shareholder derivative, unfair competition and fiduciary litigation. Peter’s experience also includes conducting internal investigations on behalf of management and audit committees of public companies, and representing clients in governmental and regulatory investigations. Peter counsels clients on compliance, governance practices and litigation avoidance strategies.

Prior to joining the firm, Peter was an Associate General Counsel of litigation at Affymetrix, Inc., a biotech company in Silicon Valley, where he and other members of the in-house litigation team directly handled intellectual property and securities litigation matters. Before joining Affymetrix, Peter was a Partner at Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, in its San Francisco office. Earlier in his career, Peter served as a Special Assistant District Attorney for the San Francisco District Attorney’s Office and as a Judicial Clerk for the Honorable John T. Noonan, Jr., Circuit Judge for the United States Court of Appeals of the Ninth Circuit.

Peter was a commissioned officer in the United States Navy before entering the legal profession, where he served as the Commander of a Navy SEAL platoon.

Representative Matters

Intellectual Property Litigation:

  • Google against claims of infringement of five patents relating to Digital Rights Management technology. Won complete defense verdict of non-infringement at jury trial. Case currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit. ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Google, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2015)
  • Affymetrix in a multi-party litigation in which Enzo alleged patent infringement and breach of distributorship agreements. Won summary judgment of non-infringement on patent claims, and partial summary judgment on contract claims. Achieved favorable settlement on remaining contract claims. Enzo Biochem, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc. (S.D.N.Y. 2010-2014)
  • Affymetrix in multi-party litigation against claims of patent infringement. Achieved favorable settlement. Enzo Life Sciences, Inc. v. Affymetrix, Inc. (D. Del. 2012-2015)
  • Affymetrix in patent infringement suit brought by MIT and its licensee, E8. Successfully moved to dismiss E8 on ground that it lacks standing to sue as “bare licensee.” Following favorable claim construction ruling, plaintiffs stipulated to final judgment of non-infringement. Argued appeal at Federal Circuit and won affirmance of the judgment. E8 Pharmaceuticals LLC and Massachusetts Institute of Technology v. Affymetrix, Inc. (D. Mass/Fed. Cir. 2008-2013)
  • Sequenom in consolidated declaratory judgment and patent infringement cases involving claims by and against Sequenom for patent infringement. Case with Illumina settled. Cases against Ariosa and Natera concluded after Supreme Court denied petition for certiorari of lower courts’ invalidation of Sequenom patent. Ariosa/Natera/Illumina v. Sequenom, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2014)
  • Sequenom in litigation arising from a dispute regarding a patent licensing agreement. Filed Sequenom complaint for declaratory judgment on October 11, 2011. On same day, Life Tech filed complaint against Sequenom for declaratory judgment, breach of the licensing agreement, and unfair competition under California’s Unfair Competition Law. Life Tech dismissed breach of contract claims and case settled. Sequenom v. Life Technologies Corp. and related case (San Diego Superior Court, 2011-2012)
  • OG International, a small video game company, in a declaratory judgment action against Ubisoft, the dominant player in the dance video game industry. Ubisoft counterclaimed for copyright and trade dress infringement, and unfair competition under California’s Unfair Competition Law. Successfully defeated Ubisoft’s motion for TRO and preliminary injunction, which sought to prevent the commercial launch of OG’s allegedly infringing dance video game. Achieved walk-away settlement. OG International Ltd. v. Ubisoft, Inc. (N.D. Cal., 2011-2013)
  • Rolls-Royce in ITC investigation initiated by UTC’s complaint for infringement of a patent relating to jet engine fan blade design. Case settled as part of a global settlement between the parties. United Technologies Corp. v. Rolls-Royce plc (ITC, 2010-2011)
  • QinetiQ in a suit against Oclaro for infringement of patents related to optical electronics and components. Case settled. QinetiQ, Ltd. v. Oclaro, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2010)
  • Affymetrix in an arbitration matter involving an indemnification dispute arising from a sponsored research agreement. Matter settled. Affymetrix v. Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (AAA 2009)
  • Affymetrix in high-stakes patent infringement case involving DNA micro-arrays. Oversaw fact and expert discovery, and drafting of all written advocacy. Case settled after the initial phase of the jury trial. Oxford Gene Technology, Ltd. v. Affymetrix, Inc. (D. Delaware 1999-2001)
  • Affymetrix as lead counsel in negotiation of complex business arrangement between Affymetrix and Beckman-Coulter. This negotiation was a by-product of the OGT v. Affymetrix litigation. Affymetrix business transaction with Beckman-Coulter, Inc. (2001-2002)

Securities and Derivative Litigation

  • 20 current and former directors and officers of Affymetrix in this shareholder derivative litigation alleging various federal and state securities and common law claims based on alleged backdating of stock options. Successfully moved to dismiss several claims. Litigation settled without any payment from clients. In re Affymetrix Derivative Litig. and related state court litigation (N.D. Cal./Santa Clara Superior Court 2006-2009)
  • Issuer (subprime mortgage lender) and top executives in defense of class action and derivative actions based on nondisclosure of alleged regulatory problems. In re NovaStar Securities Litigation (W.D. Mo. 2004-2006)
  • Issuer, directors, and officers in obtaining voluntary dismissal of this and two related class actions claiming improper revenue recognition in connection with restated financial statements. Operating Engineers v. IMPAC Medical Systems (N.D. Cal. 2004-2005)
  • Issuer, directors, and officers in obtaining dismissal with prejudice of class action claiming misleading projections. Khader v. Affymetrix (N.D. Cal. 2003-04)
  • Underwriters – Lehman Brothers, Inc., Citigroup Global Markets, Inc., Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc., J.P. Morgan Securities, Inc. – in obtaining dismissal with prejudice of class action alleging claims of false and misleading statements in stock offering; affirmed on appeal. In re Metricom Securities Litigation (N.D. Cal., 9th Cir. 2001-2005)
  • Investment Bank – Volpe Brown Whelan & Co. that had served as financial advisor to the acquiring company in a stock-for-stock merger transaction against Securities Act claims brought by shareholders of the acquired company. Won summary judgment in favor of Volpe; affirmed on appeal. FPA Securities Litigation (S.D. Cal., 9th Cir. 1999-2004)
  • Company, directors, and officers in defense of class action and derivative actions claiming improper revenue recognition in connection with restated financial statements; obtained dismissal of 10b-5 claim, and balance settled without payment by clients. In re Onyx Software Corp. Securities Litigation (W.D. Wash. 2001-2003)
  • Former CFO in defense of class action and mass action (Ahlstrom v. Clarent Corp., D. Minn.) claiming improper revenue recognition in connection with restated financial statements; obtained dismissal of 10b-5 claim, and balance settled without payment by client. In re Clarent Corp. Securities Litigation (N.D. Cal. 2002-05)
  • Zions First National Bank in mass action alleging that Zions, as the indenture trustee, was liable for losses on debt securities issued by over 30 syndicated partnerships. Defeated plaintiffs’ motion for class certification, and won summary judgment on each of the 28 causes of action, including claims under federal and state securities laws, ERISA, Trust Indenture Act, and common law claims for breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, negligence; affirmed on appeal. Ameriks v. Zions First National Bank (D. Utah, 10th Cir. 1990-2000)
  • 17 directors and officers of Varian Associates, Inc. in this shareholder derivative action alleging that the company obtained certain defense contracts by illegal means, overcharged the government on certain other defense contracts, and that the defendant directors and officers breached their fiduciary duties. Successfully petitioned the California Court of Appeal for a writ of mandate directing entry of summary judgment in favor of all defendants, and a judgment of dismissal was entered by the Superior Court. Shields v. Battaglia (Santa Clara Superior Court 1991-93)

Financial Services/Fiduciary Litigation

  • Three former directors of Dynegy as shadow counsel in this class action on behalf of Dynegy employees who were invested in Dynegy stock through the 401(k) plan; drafted a separate motion to dismiss on behalf of clients, which the court granted with prejudice. In re Dynegy, Inc. ERISA Litigation (S.D. Texas 2003-2004)
  • Brokerage firm against claims for conversion, negligence, and breach of contract. Won summary judgment on all claims. Fuller v. Emmett A. Larkin Company, Inc. (Alameda Superior Court 2001-2003)
  • Salomon Smith Barney and its registered representative in obtaining dismissal with prejudice of action alleging misrepresentation and negligent failure to render tax and bankruptcy advice. Deimer v. Salomon Smith Barney Inc. (N.D. Cal. 1999)
  • Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc. and Merrill Lynch Credit Corporation in defending against claims arising from loans made to the individual defendant. After opening statements on first day of jury trial, the court granted our motion for non-suit as to seven of the eight claims; case settled for nuisance value on remaining claim. Prosper Corporation v. Gary C. Johnson (Santa Cruz Superior Court 1995-1997)
  • American Investment Bank in collection action to recover amounts due on promissory notes the bank had purchased from certain limited partnerships. Successfully defeated the defense claim that the bank was not a holder in due course, and prevailed on a motion for summary judgment. The summary judgment was affirmed on appeal, and we successfully challenged defendants’ petition for review by the California Supreme Court. American Investment Bank, N.A. v. McPhee (San Francisco Superior Court 1993-1996)

Merger/Acquisition Litigation

  • Director-defendants comprising the Special Committee of SMART Modular in this deal litigation arising from the proposed acquisition of SMART Modular by Silver Lake Partners III, L.P. and related entities. Matter settled without any payment by clients, and the transaction closed. Walpole v. SMART Modular Technologies, Inc. and consolidated cases (Alameda Superior Court)
  • Investment bank and executives in litigation arising from their services as financial advisor for acquired company in stock-for-stock merger. Successfully demurred to claim for breach of fiduciary duty and claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law and securities statutes; settled remaining claims for less than costs of defense through mediation before former judge Edward Infante. Penna v. Dresdner Kleinwort Wasserstein, LLC (Los Angeles Superior Court 2003-2005)
  • Guidant Corp. against claims arising from acquisition of a Guidant subsidiary. Settled case favorably after we demonstrated that a key document relied on by plaintiff had been forged by a third party. S. Surgical Corp. v. Guidant Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2002-2003)

Unfair Competition Litigation

  • Salomon Smith Barney against claims brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law alleging misrepresentations by SSB in its research reports. Following removal, the district court denied the motion for remand and granted our motion to dismiss; the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal, and the Supreme Court denied plaintiff’s petition for review. Politzer v. Salomon Smith Barney, Inc. (Los Angeles Superior Court, removed to C.D. Cal., 9th Cir., US Supreme Court, 2003-2005)
  • Salomon Smith Barney in an action brought under California’s Unfair Competition Law in marketing of callable certificates of deposit. Case favorably settled during the initial procedural phase in the state court after denial of remand was reversed by Ninth Circuit. Lippitt v. Raymond James Financial Services, Inc. (San Francisco Superior Court, removed to N.D. Cal., 9th Cir. 2001-2004)
  • Fremont Bank in a civil enforcement action by Santa Clara District Attorney alleging claims of unfair competition and false advertising arising from the bank’s marketing of its no-cost mortgage loans. Negotiated favorable settlement. Also handled and resolved related matter initiated by California’s Office of the Attorney General. State of California v. Fremont Bank (Santa Clara Superior Court, 1994-1998)
  • Electronics company against actions alleging state antitrust claim under California’s Cartwright Act and related claims for malicious prosecution and abuse of process. The action was dismissed with prejudice on demurrer. Wuttke v. Intersil, Inc. (Santa Clara Superior Court, 1992-1993)