Anthony L. Marks
Tony serves as a trusted counsel for clients, helping them solve their most sensitive and complex problems.
Tony Marks represents clients primarily in the technology industry, with a special emphasis on semiconductors and software. His work includes investigations, litigation, and counseling spanning a variety of areas, including commercial and intellectual property disputes, compliance and investigations, and legal ethics. Tony's courtroom experience has earned him recognition from Best Lawyers in America for Commercial Litigation annually since 2020.
Areas of focus
Education & Credentials
Education
- Arizona State University, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, J.D., magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, Note & Comment Editor, Arizona State Law Journal, 1988
- The University of Arizona, B.S.B.A., 1985
Bar and Court Admissions
-
Arizona
- Supreme Court of the United States
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Illinois
Professional Recognition
Listed in Best Lawyers in America: Commercial Litigation, 2020-2025
*Peer Review Rated AV in Martindale-Hubbell
(AV®, BV® and CV® are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies.)
Impact
Professional Leadership
- American Bar Association
- State Bar of Arizona
- Colorado State Bar
- Maricopa County Bar Association
News
Professional Experience
Litigation
Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. and various putative class members v. Intel Corporation
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Assisted defense of Intel in antitrust action brought by AMD and multiple putative class actions alleging Sherman Act violations in connection with the sale of microprocessors. Settled.
Barbara’s Sales Inc., et al. v. Intel Corporation
Circuit Court of Illinois, Madison County, Illinois Supreme Court
Defended Intel against allegations that it misrepresented performance capabilities of early Pentium® 4 processors. The plaintiffs sought to pursue a nationwide class action in Madison County, Illinois, but under California's deceptive trade practices statutes. On appeal, the Illinois Supreme Court held that Illinois law rather than California law applied, that the alleged misrepresentations were mere "puffing" and therefore not actionable under Illinois law, and that the case should not proceed as a class action. 879 N.E.2d 910 (Ill. 2007)
KPNX-TV v. Superior Court
Access to public records.
Schoonover v. Mobile Mini Inc.
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
Defense of action to compel issuance of stock options. Settled.
Standard Chartered PLC v. Price-Waterhouse LLP
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County, Arizona Court of Appeals
Counsel for Price-Waterhouse in post-trial proceedings, on appeal, and on remand. The case involved questions of first impression under the Arizona Securities Act and various common law theories. The Arizona Court of Appeals overturned a $338 million accountant malpractice verdict and directed judgment in favor of Price Waterhouse on all but a single claim, which was settled on remand. Ariz. 6, 945 P.2d 317 (Ariz. Ct. App.1996)
Sun City Taxpayers' Association v. Citizens Utilities Company
U.S. District Court for the District of Connecticut, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Defense of RICO action seeking nearly $500 million in damages brought against a public utility alleging fraud in the rate-setting process. Obtained a judgment of dismissal, which was affirmed on appeal.
Unitech Industries Inc. v. Coopers & Lybrand, L.L.P.
Superior Court of Arizona, Maricopa County
Represented Coopers & Lybrand in action alleging breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, common law fraud, negligent misrepresentation, professional negligence, consumer fraud and Arizona racketeering. Fraud claims against Coopers & Lybrand were dismissed. Case was settled after evidence in support of a claim for $37 million in damages was excluded.