Daniel B. Asimow

In the technology space, Mr. Asimow was part of a team that secured the dismissal in 2018 of an antitrust case that alleged an unlawful no-poach agreement between two competitors. He has represented technology companies in a wide variety of antitrust matters, as both plaintiff and defendant, including cases alleging monopolization of aftermarkets, unlawful tying (both of products and technologies), exclusive dealing, and price fixing.

In the pharmaceutical space, he presently represents Bristol-Myers Squibb in a wide-ranging antitrust case that challenged the licensing practices involved in combination antiretroviral therapy. He recently concluded representation of another major pharmaceutical company in the first case within the Ninth Circuit to address the application of the Supreme Court's Actavis decision to reverse payment settlements.

Mr. Asimow's practice spans both trials and appeals. He has tried to verdict cases involving technology licensing, alleged monopolization of the electrical grid, retail price scanning, and the publicity rights of retired Major League Baseball players. His appellate work includes F.B.T. Productions v. Aftermath Records, a ground-breaking Ninth Circuit case that addressed the application of traditional recording agreements to new methods of licensed distribution. He also successfully represented the heirs of Marvin Gaye in the Ninth Circuit in a matter concerning copyright infringement by the hit song Blurred Lines.

Mr. Asimow's pro bono practice includes representation of plaintiffs in S.A. v. Trump, in which the District Court recently entered a preliminary injunction finding that the Government's termination of the Obama-era Central American Minors Program was likely unlawful and requiring the Department of Homeland Security to resume processing the travel applications of over 2,700 minors in Central America.

Mr. Asimow has substantial additional experience in antitrust, copyright, and trademark litigation, as well as class action, partnership and private client service disputes. He provides antitrust counseling to a variety of clients in different industries and has twice taught the primary introductory antitrust course at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law.