Michael A. Berta

As it did with most lawyers, Berta’s work-life balance tilted toward his home situation during the pandemic.

As the senior member of Arnold & Porter’s west coast IP team, he said that coronavirus restrictions that led to stay-at-home orders and a heavy dose of isolation made clear the importance of gathering at the office.

“Business has gone on; clients still have trade secrets and disputes that need attention,” Berta said. “What’s changed is our work style.”

The change highlighted the importance of teamwork.

“Being at home has reaffirmed the value of working in proximity,” he added, noting that as restrictions ease, the firm’s San Francisco and Palo Alto locations will reopen soon.

Berta’s clients include Adobe Inc., for which he does copyright litigation; six of Adobe’s customers who used the Adobe website’s search technology; and Alphabet Inc.-owned Google as patent litigation counsel in matters which have been resolved in the client’s favor.

Meanwhile, work and life converge as Berta’s 2-year-old runs around the house in the clog footwear called Crocs — a product whose maker Berta represents that is at the center of a long-running dispute with a knock-off supplier of sandals called Dawgs. In the Matter of Certain Foam Footwear, 337-TA-567 (ITC, opened May 11, 2006); Crocs v. Effervescent Inc., 06-CV00605 (D. Co., filed April 3, 2006).

Berta obtained an International Trade Commission order in 2011 blocking the import of shoes to the U.S. that infringe on Crocs’ U.S. patents. Since then, he and his team have worked with the client and with the Customs and Border Patrol to enforce the order at various ports of entry.

Berta has also been protecting Crocs’ patent rights in litigation in Colorado and Florida.

In 2019, he twice attained sanctions against the infringer for countersuits it filed in Nevada.

He is currently representing Crocs in multiple appeals at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, at the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals and in district court related to the ongoing disputes.

In one January order, an exasperated judge blasted Dawgs’ “colossal waste of attorney time and judicial resources” in dragging its feet in a document production matter. He included a “strong admonition” that he “is more than simply weary of Dawgs’ continued abuse of the court process…”

“It will be finished some day,” Berta said.

— John Roemer