Lim Ruger "Super Lawyers"

February 25, 2012 -  Three Lim Ruger partners have been named Southern California "Super Lawyers" for 2012.  Congratulations to John Lim, Christopher Kim and Samuel Oh.  This is the sixth time that John has been recognized, and the fifth time for Chris.  These selections reflect the outstanding reputation Lim Ruger has in the legal community.
3_1John Lim
3_1Christopher Kim
3_1Samuel Oh

Lim Ruger Seminar for Bank Loan Officers

February 24, 2012 -  John Lim, Paul Kim and James Ho will be speaking to loan officers of major regional banks at a program offered by the Korean American CPA Association on March  5, 2012 and March 7, 2012.   They will be speaking on issues related to legal due diligence, security interests, and loan enforcement.  Mr. Lim is a partner in the transactions group at Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP and specializes in real estate development and financing, representing developers, financial institutions and investment entities.  Mr. Kim is an associate in the transactions group whose practice focuses on corporate and commercial transactions.  Mr. Ho is an associate in the transactions group and specializes in real estate transactions such as acquisitions and dispositions, leasing and real estate finance.
3_1John Lim
120224_bank_loan_seminar_pk[1]Paul Kim
120224_bank_loan_seminar_jh[1]James Ho

Lim Ruger Employment Law Seminars for Employers

February 24, 2012 -  Laws and regulations that affect employers in California are complex and difficult to navigate.  In-house lawyers and managers need to stay informed on the do’s and don’ts in all aspects of hiring, firing, and managing personnel to minimize legal risks.  Lim Ruger has a strong employment practice and offers employers practical seminars and training on topics that have a critical impact on the day-to-day management of your business.  Some of the seminars we offer include:
  • Sexual Harassment Training for Supervisors as required by AB1825.
  • The Do’s and Don’ts of the Interview and Hiring Process
  • The Do’s and Don’ts of Handling Downsizing and Terminations
  • New Employment Laws for 2012
  • Employment Practices Liability Insurance
  • Risks of Social Media in the Workplace
We can schedule and tailor seminar classes to meet your needs.  Seminars can be conducted for in-house lawyers and/or management personnel.  On-site training is available for larger groups.  Most seminars can also be conducted in Korean, and in some cases, other languages such as Spanish and Chinese.  For more information on these and other possible seminars please contact Amy Lee at (213) 955-9500.

Proving Damages in Intellectual Property Litigation

Northern District of California Rejects Hypothetical License Finding and Cuts Down Largest Copyright Infringement Jury Verdict of $1.3 Billion February 24, 2012 -  A recent high-profile case from Northern California highlights the difficulty of proving damages in IP cases based on a hypothetical license model.  On September 1, 2011, the Northern District of California entered a Judgment As a Matter of Law and reduced a $1.3 billion jury verdict for copyright infringement against SAP in Oracle USA, Inc., et al. v. SAP AG, et al., Case No. C07-1658PJH (N.D. Cal).  The jury verdict was the largest ever in a copyright infringement case.  The Court found that Oracle's hypothetical license model for proving damages was too speculative because Oracle did not present any benchmark evidence to support a hypothetical license.  Instead, Oracle presented only witness testimony speculating on what Oracle would have charged for such a hypothetical license.  The Court entered a remittitur of $272 million based on the lost profit analysis done by Oracle's expert.Oracle accused SAP's subsidiary, TomorrowNow, of stealing Oracle's customer support software and using it to provide low cost maintenance to companies familiar with Oracle's products.  Shortly before trial, SAP conceded liability on copyright infringement but continued to contest Oracle's damages claims.At trial, Oracle's damages expert and executives testified that had SAP sought to license the stolen software, Oracle would have charged SAP between 1.66 and 3 billion dollars.  Another Oracle employee testified that because SAP and Oracle are competitors, such a license would be unique and unprecedented.  Oracle did not present any figures against which the hypothetical license fees could be benchmarked since it had never previously licensed the software and there were no comparable licenses from other sources.  Notwithstanding the lack of any comparable data, the jury returned a verdict of $1.3 billion based on the fair market value of a hypothetical license.  Following the verdict, SAP filed post-trial motions to reduce the jury award.Relying on the Copyright Act provision allowing only actual damages "as a result of the infringement" plus recoverable profits "attributable to the infringement," the Court held that to prove damages based on a hypothetical license model, Oracle needed to establish:(1) but for the infringement, the parties would have agreed to license the copyrighted work; and (2) an objective, non-speculative license price through objective evidence of benchmark transactions.Since Oracle did not present any actual data of prior or comparable licenses, the Court overturned the jury verdict as speculative and entered a remittitur of  $272 million based on the Oracle expert's lost profits analysis.  Oracle could either accept the remittitur or proceed to a new trial.On February 8, 2012, Oracle rejected the remittitur and demanded a new trial.While the eventual verdict and the Court's decision will likely be appealed, this decision highlights the difficulty of proving damages in IP cases, particularly where (1) there are no comparable licenses to benchmark against because Plaintiff never licenses the IP; and (2) the wrongdoer generates little or no profit.  As Oracle's President Safra Catz testified in response to a question about SAP's settlement offer:"SAP paying us $40 million is a reward for their bad behavior. This is like taking someone's $2,000 watch and hocking it for $20 and then offering us $20. … (It) undervalues the basis of our entire industry. It's all about intellectual property."Philip J. Wang is an IP and commercial litigation partner in the San Francisco office of Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP.  His practice also includes securities and derivative litigation, government enforcement actions, and antitrust litigation.  Trusted by Fortune 500 companies and entrepreneurs, the firm of Lim, Ruger & Kim, LLP ( is a minority-owned law firm focused on complex commercial litigation, employment, and sophisticated real estate, finance, and corporate transactions.

Lim Ruger's San Francisco Office Strengthens High Tech Practice

February 23, 2012 -  Our new San Francisco Bay Area office complements our well-established practice in Los Angeles, offering clients cost-effective representation in complex litigation and sophisticated real estate and corporate transactions.  Our litigators in the Bay Area include former clerks to federal judges and focus their practice on advising high technology companies in commercial disputes, class actions, securities litigation, antitrust, agency investigations, intellectual property litigation, employment matters, and arbitrations.  Our experienced transactional lawyers represent clients in commercial developments, mergers and acquisitions, financing, international business, and corporate and partnership tax planning.
120223_philip[1]Philip Wang has a strong litigation background in complex commercial disputes including securities, intellectual property, antitrust matters, derivative lawsuits and employment litigation.  Mr. Wang is a graduate of the University of Michigan School of Law.
120223_justin[1]Justin Chang has represented multinational corporations, as well as shareholders, officers, directors and employees in complex litigation, arbitrations, antitrust compliance programs, and internal and regulatory investigations involving the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Department of Justice and the Department of Labor.  Mr. Chang is a graduate of Boalt Hall at the University of California at Berkeley.
120223_marc[1]Marc Manason is a partner in the transactions group and has been with the Firm for nearly 20 years. He represents developers, investors, public agencies, landlords and tenants in all aspects of real estate transactions including major developments, redevelopments, entitlements, financing, acquisitions and leasing.  Mr. Manason is a graduate of Boalt Hall at the University of California at Berkeley.
120223_traci[1]Traci Keith is a litigation associate with substantial experience in patent and intellectual property and securities litigation.  Ms. Keith is a graduate of Columbia University School of Law, with a Masters degree from Columbia University and a B.S. in Molecular & Cellular Biology from MIT.
120223_terence[1]Terence Woodsome has significant experience in patent litigation as well as other commercial litigation matters.  Mr. Woodsome is a graduate of the University of Virginia School of Law and has a Ph.D. in Physiology from Georgetown University and a B.A. in Government and Biology from Claremont McKenna College.
Email Us For a Response

Question For LimNexus LLP?

Bold labels are required.

Contact Information

The use of the Internet or this form for communication with the firm or any individual member of the firm does not establish an attorney-client relationship. Confidential or time-sensitive information should not be sent through this form.


Privacy Policy

Los Angeles
707 Wilshire Blvd.
46th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90017

Phone: 213-955-9500
Fax: 213-955-9511
Map & Directions

San Francisco
220 Montgomery Street
Suite 1411
San Francisco, CA 94104

Phone: 415-619-3320
Map & Directions

1050 Connecticut Ave. NW
Suite 500
Washington, DC 20036

Phone: 202-772-1077
Map & Directions