![Profile photo for Judith B. Jennison](/sites/default/files/styles/portrait_4x5_360x450_1x/public/media/profile790.jpg?itok=PZXsv5Ow)
![Profile photo for Judith B. Jennison](/sites/default/files/styles/portrait_4x5_360x450_1x/public/media/profile790.jpg?itok=PZXsv5Ow)
Judy Jennison
Judy is a strategic trusted advisor to the world's most sophisticated technology companies on intellectual property and related issues.
Partner Judy Jennison represents technology companies in intellectual property litigation and counseling. She has particular knowledge in the application of copyright law to software.
Judy served as lead counsel for the successful search engine defendant in Kelly v. Arriba Soft, a landmark fair use case. She has participated in a number of leading copyright cases, including Nintendo v. Galoob, Adobe v. Southern Software, and MGM v. Grokster. The former chair of the firm's Trade Secrets practice, Judy also focuses on trade secret litigation and counseling.
Judy has handled trademark, trade dress, false advertising, and unfair competition claims and has participated in several high-profile antitrust cases, including Atari Corp. v. Nintendo and United States v. Microsoft.
In addition to her many years in private practice, Judy spent eight years as an in-house lawyer with Microsoft Corporation, where she led the company's Copyright and Trade Secret Group, served as associate general counsel for the Microsoft Office business, and was responsible for significant aspects of the company's worldwide antitrust compliance efforts.
Education & Credentials
Education
- Rutgers School of Law, J.D., Managing Business Editor, Rutgers Law Review, 1991
- Smith College, A.B., Mathematics, 1986
Bar and Court Admissions
-
Washington
-
California
-
District of Columbia
-
New Jersey
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey
- U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Washington
Related Employment
- Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, Senior Attorney, 2004-2006; 2008-2011, Associate General Counsel, 2006-2008
- Perkins Coie, Menlo Park; San Francisco, CA, Partner, 2000-2003; Of Counsel, 1999
- Fenwick & West, LLP, Palo Alto, CA, Associate, 1997-1999
- Steinhart & Falconer, LLP, San Francisco, CA, Associate, 1993-1997
- Mudge, Rose, Guthrie, Alexander & Ferdon, LLP, New York, NY, Associate, 1991-1993
Professional Recognition
Named "Trade Secrets Law Lawyer of the Year" by Best Lawyers in America, 2023
Listed in Best Lawyers in America: Commercial Litigation; Litigation - Intellectual Property, 2019-2024; Trade Secrets, 2023-2024; Copyright; Trademark Law, 2024
Impact
Professional Leadership
- ChIPs, Pacific Northwest Chapter, Co-Chair
- Copyright Society of the USA, Seattle Chapter, Co-Chair
- Eastside Legal Assistance Program, Board Member and Volunteer, 2005-present; Vice President, 2009; President, 2010-2011
- Seattle Intellectual Property American Inn of Court, Master, 2010-2018
Insights
News
Professional Experience
Experience
Kelly, et al. v. Arriba Soft Corp., et al.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Representation of defendant in litigation establishing fair use defense for thumbnails of copyrighted photographs in Internet search engine. 280 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2002)
Move, Inc. v. Zillow, Inc.
Superior Court of Washington, King County
Represented the defendant Zillow in an employment-related unfair competition / trade secrets case against its largest competitor in which the plaintiffs sought approximately $2 billion in damages. After the Court dismissed more than $1 billion of plaintiffs’ claimed damages, found in favor of Zillow on allegations of spoliation, and granted several of the client’s motions for partial summary judgment including dismissal of most of plaintiffs’ tort-based claims, case settled on what was scheduled to be the first day of trial.