SAM Preccelerator Program Company 3Ten8 Receives $250K in Funding and Acceptance into Citrix Startup Accelerator Seed Program


Congratulations to SAM Preccelerator Program Company 3Ten8!  They have been selected to be in the first class of of Citrix’s new program, Citrix Startup Accelerator Seed Program.  As part of their acceptance, 3Ten8 will receive $250k in seed funding, formal training and guidance from an Innovators Council comprised of CIOs and CTOs from AMD, Bosch, Citrix, Coca-Cola and Ricoh, as well as investors from top Silicon Valley VC firms. The will also present their products and services and report on their latest progress at the Innovators Day taking place at the Citrix Silicon Valley headquarters in Santa Clara. 

To view the Wall Street Journal press release, click here.

About 3Ten8

3TEN8 develops software that helps mobile network operators visualize network performance, analyze subscriber behavior and optimize their wireless networks; a state-of-the-art mobile device is only as functional as its wireless network. Currently, these networks are being managed by basic and inefficient tools. As telecom engineers, we grew tired of the shortcomings of these tools, so we took matters into our hands, dared to defy the status quo and created our own solution. 3TEN8 was founded by former employees of major telecommunications and software corporations. Merging the best of these two disciplines allowed us to develop an inspired and innovative software. By converting network data into easily understood and usable information, we have made it possible for engineers and executives to make more knowledgeable decisions. Ultimately better tools leads to happier engineers, improved networks, less dropped calls, and subsequently, happier customers and increased revenue. 3TEN8 targets 80+ mobile network operators in the U.S. and 800+ worldwide. 

To view 3Ten8′s pitch, click here.

For more information about our Preccelerator Program, contact Heidi Hubbeling at or (310) 746-9803.

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. – Decision Summary

                            Image converted using ifftoany Aereo-Logo-2013
By: Anthony Keats, Konrad Gatien and Bernadette Bolan
Brand Development & Content Protection Practice

I.            Introduction

This memo summarizes the United States Supreme Court’s decision in American Broadcasting Companies, Inc v. Aereo, Inc. which came down June 25, 2014. Justice Breyer delivered the opinion of the Court, with Roberts, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan joining. Scalia filed a dissenting opinion, in which Thomas and Alito joined.

The United States Supreme Court found in favor of the broadcast companies, in the matter of American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Aereo, Inc. The Court’s finding hinged on the Court’s rejection of the premise that “re-transmission” via the internet to a single user constituted any significant difference from the existent regulations in place for cable broadcasts of copyrighted material to a single end-user. From this perspective, the Court upheld a conservative and literal reading of the Copyright Act.

II.            Procedural History

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (“ABC”) sued Aereo, Inc. (“Aereo”) for copyright infringement and sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that Aereo was infringing on their right to “publicly perform” their copyrighted works. The District Court denied the injunction and the Second Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded.

 III.            Facts

Aereo sells a service that lets subscribers watch television via the Internet for a monthly subscription fee. Though many television networks post shows to their sites for the public to view online after the show has aired (usually a day later), this service allows users to watch shows at about the same time that the show is airing. When a subscriber wants to watch a show, s/he selects it from a menu on the Aereo website. Aereo neither owns the copyright to any of the shows, nor has a license from the owners to perform the works publicly.

Aereo has a warehouse that that houses thousands of small antennas, about the size of a dime each. Each antenna is dedicated to one subscriber. A server tunes the subscriber’s antenna to the broadcast of the show that the subscriber has picked. A transcoder translates the signal picked up by the antenna into data that can be sent out over the Internet. Instead of sending the data directly, a server saves the data for that broadcast in a folder, specific to that subscriber, on Aereo’s hard drive and then begins to stream the show to the subscribers one a few seconds of programming have been saved. This goes on, with a few seconds of delay from the initial broadcast, until the entire show has been transmitted to the subscriber. A subscriber can watch the show on any device that gets Internet service such as a personal computer, tablet, smart phone, or Internet-connected television.

ABC consists of television producers, marketers, distributers, and broadcasters. They own the copyrights in many of the shows that Aereo streams to users.

 IV.            Relevant Law

The Copyright Act of 1976 gives a copyright owner the “exclusive right” to “perform the copyrighted work publicly.”[1] The Act’s Transmit Clause defines that exclusive right to include the right to “transmit or otherwise communicate a performance . . . of the [copyrighted] work . . . to the public, by means of any device or process, whether the members of the public capable of receiving the performance . . . receive it in the same place or in separate places and at the same time or at different times.”[2]

  V.            Arguments

 Aereo emphasizes that the data that the system streams to each subscribers are the data from his or her own personal copy, made from the broadcast signals received by the subscriber’s own personal antenna. Though multiple subscribers may wish to watch the same program at the same time, Aereo’s system activates just as many antennas, one per subscriber, and sends just as many transmissions separately to each person.

 Aereo’s argument, which was initially agreed with by the Second Circuit, is that Aereo does not perform the works publicly within the meaning of the Transmit Clause because it does not transmit “to the public,” rather only to an individual subscriber each time. Furthermore, Aereo argues that it does not perform anything but merely provides equipment that allows the subscribers to “perform” the works. Aereo likens their service to the operation of a home antenna connected with a digital video recorders (DVR).

ABC says that Aereo transmits a prior performance of their works, and so when it retransmits a network’s prior broadcast, the underlying broadcast is the performance that Aereo transmits. Aereo claims it transmits a new performance created by its act of transmitting and that performance comes into existence when Aereo streams that images ad sounds of a broadcast program to the subscriber’s screen.

 VI.            Court’s Analysis

 Does Aereo Perform?

One of Congress’s purposes in amending the Copyright Act in 1976 was to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision that community antenna television (CATV) systems fell outside of the Act’s scope. In Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists Television, Inc., a CATV provider put antennas on hills above two cities and used cables to carry the signals that it picked up to home television sets of its subscribers.[3] The system amplified the signals so the subscribers could better receive them. The CATV provider did not edit the programs or originate them, it just conveyed what it picked up via the antennas. A subscriber could choose any of the programs to view by turning the knobs on the home television set. The Court held that broadcasters perform and that viewers do not, placing the CATV providers under the category of “viewers.”[4] Essentially, the court said that the CATV system only enhanced a viewer’s ability to receive broadcast signals by providing amplifying equipment and that like a viewer who does not become a “performer” by using enhancement equipment directly, the CATV provider did not perform. The Court had a similar holding in Teleprompter Corp. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc.[5]

The amended Copyright Act sought to erase the Court’s line between broadcaster and viewer, in respect to “performing.” The amended statute clarifies that to “perform” an audiovisual work means “to show its images in any sequence or to make the sounds accompanying it audible.”[6] Under this language, both the broadcaster and the viewer of a television program “perform” because they both show the program’s images and make the program’s sounds audible. Congress also enacted the Transmit Clause, which specifies that a performance becomes public when it is transmitted to the public.[7] Congress also created a new section of the Act to regular cable companies’ public performances of copyrighted works, Section 111. The section creates a complex system of compulsory licensing that sets out conditions and payment terms for cable systems to retransmit broadcasts under.

The Court found that history makes clear that Aereo is not simply an equipment provider, but that Aereo, not just its subscribers, performs/transmits the works. The Court likened Aereo to the CATV companies that Congress acted to address. Though Aereo’s equipment serves a viewer function and may emulate equipment a viewer could use at home, the same was true of the CATV companies.

The Court recognized that the difference between Aereo and the CATV systems was that those systems transmitted constantly whereas Aereo’s system remains inert until a subscriber indicates that s/he wants to watch a show and triggers the antennas to receive a broadcast. Though the dissent found this crucial, the majority did not agree that this made any critical difference.

Is the Performance Public?

Under the Transmit Clause, to transmit a performance is “to communicate it by any device or process whereby images or sounds are received beyond the place from which they are sent.”[8] The Court assumed, arguendo, that Aereo’s argument was correct and that a to transmit a performance means to communicate contemporaneously visible images and sounds of the work. Aereo streams the program to the subscribers over the Internet and thereby communicates the images and sounds to the subscriber by means of a device or process.

The Court stated that, although each transmission goes to an individual subscriber, the differences in the way the system works does not distinguish Aereo from a typical cable system. Aereo’s commercial objective, the Court found, is no different from a traditional cable company’s objective. Additionally, the viewing experience of Aereo’s subscribers is not significantly altered. The Court found that though Aereo’s argument assumes that “to transmit a performance” means to make a single transmission, the Clause suggests that an entity may transmit a performance through multiple, discrete transmissions. The Clause says that one may transmit a performance to the public “whether the members of the public are capable of receiving the performance… receive it … at the same or at different times.”[9] If the phrase, “to transmit a performance” were limited to a single act of communication, members of the public could not receive the performance communicated “at different times.” The Court found that Aereo does perform publicly.


Aereo performs ABC’s works publicly, within the meaning of the Copyright Act’s Transmit Clause. Aereo does not merely supply equipment to allow others to “perform” the works; it does so itself. Furthermore, this performance is “public” because Aereo “transmits” the performance of the work to the public. That each individual transmission goes to a specific subscriber only does not distinguish Aereo’s model from cable television systems, which do perform publicly.


Scalia argued that Aereo, if at all, was secondarily infringing but not directly infringing. Aereo, Scalia claims, may enable its users to infringe by providing the equipment, but does not do so directly itself because it merely operates an automated, user-controlled system. Scalia compared Aereo to a copy shop that rents out its copiers to the public – it provides the machines but the customers are the ones who choose to use the machines legally (to copy their own work) or illegally (to copy copyrighted works of others). Aereo is like, Scalia contends, a copy shop that gives patrons a library card.

Scalia stated that he shares the majority’s opinion that what Aereo is doing (or enabling) to the network’s programing should not be allowed, but that the Copyright Act should not be distorted to forbid it.

 IX.            General Comments

A decision to ignore the technological subtleties presented by Aereo renders their service effectively illegal, and potentially sets a relevant precedent for technology-based arguments in the future. It’s quite likely that, given the technology, social climate, and nature of copyright creation today, that were the Copyright Act written or revised today, this finding may have been different. But given the broad language of the Act as we have, it is not entirely surprising that the Court would find against the technological argument.

Although this grants the cable companies a temporary reprieve from the pressures of internet based entertainment, “(c) Given the limited nature of this holding, the Court does not believe its decision will discourage the emergence or use of different kinds of technologies. Pp. 15–17.” Though this is an important finding in the short term, the Court clearly does not believe the finding will significantly hinder the development and improvement of this sort of technology in the future. Though the Court did an excellent job interpreting the word of Congress in its application of the 1976 Copyright Act, it is hobbled by its limited variety of terms regarding technology: The text of the Clause effectuates Congress’ intent. Under the Clause, an entity may transmit a performance through multiple transmissions, where the performance is of the same work. Thus when an entity communicates the same contemporaneously perceptible images and sounds to multiple people, it “transmit[s] . . . a performance” to them, irrespective of the number of discrete communications it makes and irrespective of whether it transmits using a single copy of the work or, as Aereo does, using an individual personal copy for each viewer.” And of course, how relevant that is to actual users’ interests remains to be seen.

Aereo is one of a number of factors putting pressure on cable companies to unbundle their delivery services of copyrighted works, allowing for lower cost al la carte options. These factors include VOD, Netflix, piracy, and DVR commercial skipping. Aereo’s statement reveals a real concern that the Court’s finding has more significant repercussions for streaming content delivery. “Today’s decision by the United States Supreme Court is a massive setback for the American consumer. We’ve said all along that we worked diligently to create a technology that complies with the law, but today’s decision clearly states that how the technology works does not matter. This sends a chilling message to the technology industry.  It is troubling that the Court states in its decision that, ‘to the extent commercial actors or other interested entities may be concerned with the relationship between the development and use of such technologies and the Copyright Act, they are of course free to seek action from Congress.’ (Majority, page 17) That begs the question: Are we moving towards a permission-based system for technology innovation?”

Although this decision is, according to Aereo’s lawyer Tom Goldstein, “sweeping and definitive,” Justice Scalia led the dissent, taking issue with the assertion that Aereo’s actions constitute “performance.” “In sum, Aereo does not ‘perform’ for the sole and simple reason that it does not make the choice of content,” Scalia writes. “And because Aereo does not perform, it cannot be held directly liable for infringing the Networks’ public-performance right.” Although he agreed with the result, that Aereo should be prevented from enabling access to Network’s IP, he suggests “Perhaps we need not distort the Copyright Act to forbid it.”

    X.            Website Follow up

[1] 17 U. S. C. §106(4).

[2] Id. §101.

[3] 392 U.S. 390 (1968).

[4] Id. at 398-99.

[5] 415 U.S. 394 (1974).

[6] §101

[7] Id.

[8] 17 U. S. C. §101

[9] Id.

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP Represents Client The Bouqs Company in $6M Series A Financing


SAM announced that it represented client, The Bouqs Company (, a premier cut-to-order online flower delivery service, in a $6 million Series A financing. Led by Azure Capital Partners and joined by KEC Ventures, funding will be used to accelerate growth initiatives including expanding the team, offering delivery outside the US, and scaling the company’s technology and infrastructure to keep pace with growing demand.  

SAM attorneys Ryan Azlein and Gaurav Krishan served as counsel for The Bouqs Company for this transaction.

“Interest from our customers has exceeded our wildest expectations. We are growing 8-10X year-over-year largely based on organic channels such as word-of-mouth, social, and referrals,” said John Tabis, CEO & Founder of “We launched this platform to ‘rearrange’ the global $50B+ flower industry, and it’s thrilling to see both consumers and flower farms enjoying our simpler and more elegant platform for flower delivery. This new infusion of capital and a great set of advisors will enable us to expand our operations and Bouqs deliveries to even more households and businesses in the US, and soon around the world.”

To view the full press release, click here.

To view the PandoDaily article covering the deal, click here.

About The Bouqs Company
The Bouqs Company ( is a cut-to-order online flower delivery company. Founded by John Tabis and JP Montúfar, the company launched in late 2012 to create an online flower delivery service for the global, modern consumer. offers a simple shopping and superior customer service experience, and delivers high-quality, farm-direct, eco-friendly stems with honest and direct pricing. Bouqs are grown on eco-friendly and sustainable farms located 10,000 feet above sea level on the side of a volcano situated right on the equator in South America, or on similarly high quality farms along the California coast. For more information on The Bouqs Company, please visit: or watch the video.

For more information about our Venture Capital & Emerging Growth practice, contact Partner Ryan Azlein at (818) 444-4504 or

SAM Preccelerator Program Presents: Marketing Bootcamp for Startups – July 10, 2014

Join Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
for this exclusive event!




Thursday, July 10th , 2014



**Food, Drinks & Networking Included!**

Great products and services don’t just deserve great marketing, they demand it! The 0 to 60 Marketing for Startups Bootcamp helps early stage companies cover the essentials in key areas including:
  • Building your brand
  • Setting up marketing processes
  • Boosting awareness and credibility
  • Lowering customer acquisition costs
  • Raising funding
Using real world examples, the bootcamp will equip entrepreneurs with practical tools and processes to build sustainable and targeted marketing programs.






Peter Mansfield


Peter Mansfield is the quintessential startup marketing professional. Over the course of 25 years, he has been involved in a notable sequence of early stage company adventures and successes.  Peter’s in-the-trenches experience makes him particularly valuable in helping new ventures move quickly and efficiently to realize their market potential. He has helped fast growth companies including Xircom, Xylan, Optimal Networks, Packeteer, and Gearworks reach an aggregate market value of close to $5 billion. Alongside his strategic and tactical marketing involvement, Peter helps companies raise money, develop customer acquisition programs, and build channel partnerships. His extensive network includes top-tier VC firms and angels, venture-focused attorneys, recruiters, and other startup experts.

In addition to his market-proven ability to drive awareness and credibility for startups, Peter also provides marketing services for larger organizations. This includes financial services leaders such as Union Bank, and non-profits like The California Wellness Foundation.

On a tactical level, Peter gets actively involved in branding, website development, presentations, event/conference management, social media, SEO/SEM, advertising, collateral development, PR, and sales support.

Peter founded Mansfield + Associates in 1992. The firm works with fast growth companies across the US.

Peter’s current roster of venture-funded clients includes BillFloat (San Francisco), Marqeta (Emeryville), Revolution Credit (Irvine), Wallaby Financial (Pasadena), and ClickWithFriends (Toronto).

Peter was previously a co-founder of Dodge & Mansfield, an award-winning creative agency in Ventura County, California. He also served in senior marketing roles at Kodak U.K., Ltd., and John Lewis Ltd., the UK’s fastest growing department store chain.




Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP
1453 3rd Street Promenade, Suite 300
Santa Monica, CA 90401





4th Street/Broadway ramp or in the Santa Monica Place Mall

We hope to see you there!

SAM Public Securities Group Boasts Two Public Offering Deals in June


Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP’s Public Security Practice has had a successful June, closing two public offering deals in the first half of the month.

SAM advised client Resonant Inc. in its initial public offering of 3,105,000 shares of common stock at a price to the public of $6.00 per share.  The deal closed June 3, 2014.  To read the Stubbs Alderton press release, click here.

SAM also advised client Vitesse Semiconductor Corporation (Nasdaq VTSS) in an underwritten public offering of 8,582,076 shares of its common stock at a price to the public of $3.35 per share.  The offering closed on June 17, 2014.  To read the Stubbs Alderton press release, click here.

For more information about our Public Securities Practice, contact Partner John McIlvery at (818) 444-4502 or


Earlier this month, Brand Development & Content Protection co-chairs Tony Keats and Konrad Gatien attended the annual meetings of the International AntiCounterfeiting Coalition and the International Trademark Association in Hong Kong.  In addition, Tony Keats traveled to Shanghai, Xi’an and Beijing.  During their trip to China, they witnessed several issues that blatantly affect brand protection efforts of high-fashion design and consumer product companies.


Tony Keats  reports on visiting Beijing’s notorious Silk Market Building  with some 1,700 vendors, over 3,000 salespeople, 10 sales floors, and located on seven floors  at Yonganli, in the Chaoyang District. Here, the sales personnel openly flaunt the availability of enormous volumes of counterfeit apparel and luxury goods.  In the prior decade, famous brand owners from Burberry, Louis Vuitton, Chanel  and Gucci, to The North Face and LaCoste had achieved ground-breaking legal successes  obtaining relief against the owner/landlord of Beijing’s Silk Market complex, including obtaining injunctive relief, signage requirements, and even small amounts of damages. However, less than a decade later, this litigation has had little impact as Tony Keats was shown back-rooms of various stores with floor to ceiling inventories of counterfeit luxury products. On the first floor, vendors selling unlicensed apparel were not even hiding the merchandise in backrooms but were openly displaying enormous quantities without any effort to cover up their sales. Tony also reports that dozens of tour buses unloaded anxious buyers at the Silk Market while he was at the market. It is reported that there are approximately 20,000 visitors on the weekdays and between 50,000 to 60,000 shoppers on weekends.







It has been suggested that as China develops more of its own famous brands which are counterfeited, that the IP community will see greater enforcement efforts by the authorities in that country.  For example, on May 14, the state paper The China Daily reported that customs officials in  Jiangmen City in  Guangdong Province recently seized nearly 3 million fake batteries with a value of US $90,000. The counterfeits, which were to be shipped to Dubai, have a graphic logo very similar to that of SUNWATT, a famous brand owned by Chinese manufacturer, Guangxi company.

SAM’s Brand Development and Content Protection group was able to assist client Stanley Black & Decker in shutting down a counterfeit battery manufacturer in Fushon City, which was producing counterfeit DeWalt brand batteries used with the companies power tools.


On May 1, 2014, revisions of the trademark law went into effect. One provision prohibits the use of “well-known trademarks” in advertising and on packaging. The state paper The China Daily reported that the new law was causing a number of companies to change their labels and even destroy products. One Chinese company, Jing Wu Agribusiness Group, a company specializing in food and feed processing, which won the title of most well-known trademark in China in January 2013, has now recalled and destroyed nearly 2 million packages at a cost of approximately US $500,000.


The state China Intellectual Property News proclaimed that agencies nationwide investigated more than 4,700 intellectual property infringements in the first quarter of 2014 that had a combined potential retail value of US $43.25 million. Enforcement officials claimed to have checked a wide range of sectors including garments, electric appliances, toys, shoes and furniture. They claim in March alone, 183 shipments of food and six shipments of cosmetics were proven counterfeit, then destroyed or returned to exporters. These efforts are at best a step in the right direction but a paltry amount in light of the size of the Chinese counterfeiting problem.

It was reported by The China Daily on May 21st, that a district court in Beijing handed jail and monetary penalties against seven men convicted of illegally offering movies and TV downloads in what was described as China’s largest copyright piracy case.  The president of the company that operated the website was sentenced to five years in jail and fined US $160,200. The other six defendants were given jail sentences ranging from one to three years., founded in 2008, had seven managers and 140 website administrators, becoming the largest portal of pirated movies, TV shows, and music in China. The parent company also had two brick and mortar stores in Beijing. The website had more than 20 million downloads.

For more information about Stubbs Alderton & Markiles’ Brand Development & Content Protection Practice, contact Tony Keats at or (310) 746-9802, or Konrad Gatien at or (310) 746-9810.

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles Encourages You to Attend: Caltech Entrepreneurs Forum – “Incubators and Accelerators Explained” – June 7th


Caltech Entrepreneurs Forum

presents their final program of the 2013 – 2014 Season…and it’s one you won’t want to miss!

Incubators and Accelerators:

Successful Path to Entrepreneurship 



Saturday, June 7, 2014
Baxter Lecture Hall at Caltech - Pasadena



Join us for an extended program and meet representatives from
southland incubators and accelerators!


8:00 – 9:00 AM Registration & Continental Breakfast
9:00 – 11:45 AM Program
Program Followed by Networking 

$40 Advance / $50 at Door
$10 Students / Caltech Students – No Charge





In today’s economic environment, early stage companies need to optimize their resources to build their organizations into growing and successful businesses.

Business Incubators and Accelerators provide these needed resources and reduce the risk of failure by offering affordable space, shared facilities, access to funding, counsel, and an array of mentors and advisors that are invaluable for companies starting out.

 The Caltech Entrepreneur Forum’s June 7th program will feature some of the award winning business incubators and Accelerators in Los Angeles and there will be many others in attendance and exhibiting.

If you are a business entrepreneur interested in optimizing the success of your company you are invited to come and learn about the Business Incubation Network of Southern California (BINS) and to discover the many ways this network of incubators and accelerators can benefit your business.


Howard Marks

Alex Maleki 

Dan Dato
Cross Campus                          

Dr. Wendie Johnston 
Pasadena Bioscience Collaborative                        

Mark Breitenberg
Art Center College of Design

Fred Walti
LA Cleantech Incubator

 Stan Tomsic
 PortTech LA


Come get answers to important questions such as:

  •  What is the difference between an incubator and accelerator?
  •  What types will best suit your needs?
  •  What kind of entrepreneurial companies benefit?
  •  How do entrepreneurs apply?
  •  Graduates: How worthwhile was joining?
  •  Would they do it again?
  •  How investors feel about businesses in incubator

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles Assists Client Malauzai Software in its $6.5 Million Series C Funding to Expand Mobile Banking SmartApps

Malauzai Software

Stubbs Alderton & Markiles has announced that it assisted client Malauzai Software, a provider of mobile banking SmartApps for community financial institutions, in its $6.48 million Round C investment led by Wellington Management Company, LLP.  In previous rounds, Malauzai has raised approximately $5.3M.

SAM attorneys John McIlvery and Gaurav Krishan represented Malauzai in this transaction.

About Malauzai Software

Malauzai was incorporated in 2010 in response to the growing demand for a technology company that could provide innovative mobile solutions for community financial organizations. As a cool company in a cool town with a focus primarily on community financial institutions, Malauzai looks to provide mobile solutions that will enhance the customer experience ultimately resulting in increased value for financial institutions.

To view the full press release, click here.

For more information about our Venture Capital & Emerging Growth practice, contact Scott Alderton at or (818) 444-4501.

Unitas Global Joins Cloud Security Group


Unitas Global


SAM client, Unitas Global, enterprise private cloud provider, has announced that it has joined an industry group called the Cloud Security Group.  This collaboration will help strengthen its mission to provide private cloud solutions to its clients.

To read the full press, click here.


Stubbs Alderton & Markiles to Host Silicon Beach Fest Legal Panel: “Dispute Resolution 1.0″


For the third year in a row, Stubbs Alderton & Markiles will be a sponsor of Silicon Beach Fest LA.  This year, SAM is the featured Legal Panel on June 19th, hosted at our Santa Monica office, with a reception to follow.  Here’s the low down:


“Dispute Resolution 1.0 – What Every Startup Needs to Know About Disputes and How to Minimize the Risk of Litigation”



June 19th, 2014

4:00-6:00 pm – Panel Presentation
6:00-8:00 pm – Reception in 2nd Floor Courtyard

**You MUST register on the SIlicon Beach Fest site in order to be admitted to the event**


What You’ll Learn: 


Experience shows that the average cost to a business for participating in a breach of contract dispute, IP/trade secrets dispute, employment dispute or other business-related dispute runs hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees alone.  Basic does and don’ts on licensing, non-competes, founder disputes, cybersecurity – all of these can sink a young business.  There are ways for a company or entrepreneur to minimize the risk of becoming embroiled in a dispute.  Equally important, how a company or entrepreneur handles disputes oftentimes is the difference between business success and failure.

Hear our panel of national experts drawn from the world of start-ups/entrepreneurs, trial and IP lawyers, and professional mediators provide some basic advice on how to best position your company to avoid those types of disputes in the first place, and to also provide some strategies about what steps to take if and when a dispute that cannot be easily resolved, is brewing.

The Panel


Moderator:  Daniel Garrie, one of the most sought-after computer forensic experts and special masters to advise federal and state judges around the country. In addition to his law degree, he holds a masters in computer science and appears as comfortable talking with entrepreneurs as he is with developers, as he is with lawyers and judges.  His national reputation in the intersection of computer forensics and the law makes him a sought-after speaker and expert in the field, and just last week he was featured in a New York Time article on cyber-security and law firms; you can view the link at:


Bruce Friedman –   During his 20+ years practicing law, Bruce received just about every professional accolade out there, served as large law firm general counsel, represented name brand companies, and carved out a niche as an expert in professional liability and insurance coverage.  Since becoming a full time mediator in 2013, he has seen his career flourish, as more and more lawyers and clients in LA realize what an outstanding addition Bruce makes to the mediation marketplace.  He is presently with ADR Services in Century City.

Tony Keats – Partner, Brand Development and Content Protection Chair, Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP. Tony’s almost three decade legal career has focused on both the legal and business protection of brands and creative content from consumer products to entertainment, from designer goods to the Internet. Since he commenced practice, he has provided counsel and has litigated cases on behalf of many of the world’s largest consumer product, top designer fashion brands and entertainment companies, as well as individual entrepreneurs, actors, and musicians. Tony’s litigation background also includes related commercial matters involving unfair competition, contract disputes, rights of publicity violations, business torts, domain name infringement, and idea submission claims. Tony is also the author of the best-known treatise on brand protection and counterfeiting on the market today, widely used by practitioners.  Not coincidentally, as part of his trademark/brand protection practice, Tony has served as a mediator in many IP-related disputes.

 Michael A. Sherman – Partner, Business Litigation Chair, Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP –  Michael is an accomplished trial lawyer in high-stakes, “bet-the-company” litigation, and has represented both large and early-stage companies as well as entrepreneurs in all facets of business and complex commercial litigation. He has evenly split his litigation practice on both the plaintiff and defense side of cases, has first-chaired numerous trials in complex matters in industries as varied as securities, healthcare, environmental, consumer products, technology, project development/finance, advertising, real estate and apparel, and is highly skilled in class actions and unfair competition law. Michael’s trial skills and courtroom success resulted in his being named several years ago to the “Top 100 Lawyers” in California list, published by the Daily Journal newspaper chain. He has consistently been named to “Best Lawyers in America”.

Chris Colvin –   Chris is a former engineer with a technical degree from Princeton, who went on to law school and a stint as a partner in a major NY firm (Kramer Levin) before he started his own NYC-based IP firm a few years back.  In addition to his “day job” as an attorney specializing in IP litigation, Chris founded two social networking sites, Ivy Life, focused on alums of the Ivy League, at  and In The House, focused at In House Counsel, at

The Courtyard Party! 

2nd Floor Courtyard
1453 3rd Street Promenade

FREE to attend when you flash your Silicon Beach Fest pass!  

Enjoy free food and drinks with like-minded entrepreneurs and startup leaders fueling innovation in Los Angeles!  Stubbs Alderton & Markiles, LLP invites you to join us at ourSilicon Beach Fest Courtyard Party in our newly expanded Santa Monica office on 3rd Street Promenade.