Appellate

Perkins Coie's Appellate Practice group defends victories and seeks relief for clients in appellate courts across the country. We have represented clients before the U.S. Supreme Court, every federal appellate circuit court, many state appellate courts and dozens of federal and state agencies. Our experience before federal and state courts in Washington, Oregon, California, Arizona, Idaho and Alaska is especially deep. In addition, dozens of our appellate attorneys have served as federal or state appellate judicial clerks. That collective “insider" experience gives us insight into the reasoning and arguments that will resonate with appellate courts.

The matters we handle span the spectrum of civil, business and regulatory issues, and often involve complex records and emerging or unsettled law. Although we focus on appeals, our work often begins before the appeal stage. We regularly consult with clients and trial counsel to help shape trial strategies and preserve important issues for appeal. We also assist with key pre- and post-trial motions that set the stage for appeal. We excel at teaming with trial lawyers — both at our firm and other firms — so that our clients benefit from both the in-depth knowledge of their trial lawyers and the fresh perspective and expertise of appellate counsel.

We also have an active amicus practice that enables our clients (and often entire industries) to weigh in on important issues in appeals involving other parties. In addition, we assist our clients with special projects such as position papers, comments on proposed statutes and regulations, and analyses of recent changes in law.

Examples of recent matters we have handled include:

• Military Justice. In the landmark decision of Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, 126 S. Ct. 2749 (2006), the U.S. Supreme Court struck down the use of military commissions to try detainees held at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Serving pro bono, we joined Georgetown Professor Neal Katyal and Navy Lt. Cmdr. Charlie Swift in representing Mr. Hamdan throughout the proceedings.
• Constitutional Law. In Sanders v. City of Seattle, 156 P.3d 874 (Wash. 2007), we successfully represented a shopping center in a high-profile case pitting public safety needs against the free speech rights of war protesters. In a cutting-edge “civil Gideon” case, In re Marriage of King, 162 Wash. 2d 378, 174 P.3d 659 (2007), we argued — ultimately unsuccessfully — that the trial court should have appointed counsel to defend our client (an indigent woman who could not afford counsel) in a child custody proceeding in which she faced the loss of her fundamental parenting rights and her opponent (her then-husband) was represented by counsel.
• Patents. In Microsoft Corp. v. AT & T Corp., 127 S. Ct. 1746 (2007), we filed an amicus brief in the U.S. Supreme Court for Intel Corp. supporting Microsoft’s contention that the Federal Circuit had construed Section 271(f) of the Patent Act too broadly. Intel contended, and the Supreme Court agreed, that the U.S. patent laws do not authorize patentees to claim damages based on worldwide software sales simply because the master version of the software code was exported from the United States. In other recent appeals, we have persuaded the Federal Circuit to affirm summary judgments in favor of clients accused of infringement.
• Product Liability. In Boeing Co. v. Egyptair, 2007 WL 1315716 (2d Cir.), the court of appeals affirmed that the district court had jurisdiction over our client Boeing's lawsuit against Egyptian defendants in a case involving liability for an airplane crash. The courts agreed that the commercial activity exception to sovereign immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act applied and that the defendant aviation insurance company had sufficient contacts with the United States to satisfy due process.
• Labor/Employment. In Hatch v. City of Algona, 167 P.3d 1175 (Wash. Ct. App. 2007), we persuaded the Washington Court of Appeals to affirm a summary judgment for our client based on the workers' compensation exclusivity provisions in Washington's Industrial Insurance Act.
• Construction. In American Safety Casualty Insurance Co. v. City of Olympia, ___ P.3d ___ , 2007 WL 4532121 (Wash. Dec. 27, 2007), we filed an amicus brief for the Washington State School Construction Alliance arguing that project owners may enter into settlement discussions with contractors without implicitly waiving contract defenses. The Washington Supreme Court unanimously agreed in an opinion that adopted several key arguments that we raised.
• Political Law. In Fleischman v. Protect Our City, 153 P.3d 1035 (Ariz. 2007), the Arizona Supreme Court affirmed an injunction keeping a municipal initiative off the City of Phoenix ballot, agreeing that state law preempted a city charter provision that allowed initiative committees to collect additional signatures after the filing deadline.
• Media Law. In West Valley View, Inc. v. Maricopa County Sheriff's Office, 165 P.3d 207 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2007), we convinced the Arizona Court of Appeals to require a sheriff's office to comply with a newspaper's public records request and provide press releases to the newspaper. The newspaper was awarded its fees and costs as well.

• Wrongful Death. In Atchison v. Great Western Malting Co., 166 P.3d 662 (Wash. 2007), we persuaded the Washington Supreme Court to affirm the dismissal of a claim that an employee had died due to occupational pesticide exposure. The court agreed with us that the statute of limitations had expired because a wrongful death action accrues at death and the statute was not tolled while the employee's daughter was a minor because a minor cannot serve as a personal representative.