Musical Chairs: A Quinn Emanuel Partner’s Mysterious Departure
Why did a Quinn Emanuel partner suddenly withdraw from the Apple v. Samsung case -- and then from the firm altogether?
QUINN EMANUEL — BIO — PATRICK M. SHIELDS
Patrick M. Shields
Partner
Los Angeles
Practice Areas
Why Do AI And Legal Professionals Make The Perfect Partnership?
Employment Litigation and Counseling
Entertainment and Media Litigation
Intellectual Property Litigation
Biography
Mr. Shields is an accomplished trial lawyer with extensive experience in intellectual property, employment, and entertainment matters, as well as general business litigation. Mr. Shields’ intellectual property practice includes patent, copyright, trademark, trade dress, trade secret, and idea theft litigation. He has litigated numerous cases through trial and appeal, in state and federal courts in California and across the country.
Representative Clients
Sponsored
Diving Into Generative AI: A Practical Guide For Law Firms Starting From Scratch
AI’s Impact On Law Firms Of Every Size
Why Do AI And Legal Professionals Make The Perfect Partnership?
AI’s Impact On Law Firms Of Every Size
In intellectual property litigation, he has represented Samsung Electronics Co., Nokia Corp., Avery Dennison Corp., Mattel, Inc., Bancorp Services, LLC, Home Box Office, Inc., Alliance Atlantis Communications, Inc., and the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.
In employment litigation, he has represented International Business Machines Corporation, Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., Northrop Grumman Corporation, The Walt Disney Company, Hughes Aircraft Company, Inc., Lowe’s Companies, Inc., Home Savings of America, Packard-Hughes Interconnect Company, and Harman/Becker Automotive Systems.
In entertainment litigation, he has represented American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., United Talent Agency, Inc., Icon Distribution Inc., Abandon Entertainment, and Miramax Film Corp.
Publications and Lectures
“Ethical Abuse of Technicalities: A Comparison of Prospective and Retrospective Legal Ethics,” 112 Harv. L. Rev. 1082 (1999)
Case Comment, “Use of Codefendant’s Confession in a Joint Trial: Gray v. Maryland,” 112 Harv. L. Rev. 142 (1998)
Recent Case, “Third Circuit Denies Self-Incrimination Privilege at Sentencing Hearing–United States v. Mitchell,” 111 Harv. L. Rev. 1140 (1998)
Sponsored
Gain An Instant Understanding Of New Complaints With LexisNexis Snapshot
Law Firms Now Have A Choice In Their Document Comparison Software
Admissions
Member, The State Bar of California
