Anjali Srinivasan

We defended biosimilar maker Coherus Biosciences against trade secret litigation brought by Amgen over its chemotherapy drug Neulasta. Through our defense of Coherus in this litigation, Coherus was able to introduce a biosimilar drug to the market to provide much needed competition and price savings to patients.

We represented Twitter in a civil lawsuit in N.D. Cal. filed by a Saudi Arabian political dissident related to rogue Twitter employees who improperly accessed account information about Plaintiff and other Twitter users while acting as covert operatives for the Saudi Arabian government. Plaintiff brought Stored Communications Act, Unfair Competition Law, invasion of privacy, intentional & negligent misrepresentation, concealment, and negligent supervision claims, attempting to hold Twitter as liable for its rogue employees’ actions. The Court recently dismissed the case with prejudice.

We represented Varian, a world leader in radiotherapy medical devices for the treatment of cancer, in prosecuting claims against one of its competitors for the infringement of two patents covering radiation delivery technology.

We defended technology company Lyft against a putative class action that addressed an issue critical to the sharing economy: whether Lyft drivers have been misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees. The parties entered into a proposed settlement that did not require the re-classification of Lyft drivers as employees.

We defeated a putative class action filed against a leading on-demand technology company, Instacart, which connects customers with personal shoppers for grocery shopping and home delivery. The class action addressed an issue critical to the new “sharing economy:” whether personal shoppers who use Instacart’s technology platform were properly considered independent contractors rather than employees. The court issued its order dismissing the class action claims in November 2015.

We defended the United States’ largest self-storage operator, Public Storage, from a consumer class action lawsuit. The plaintiff alleged our client deceived customers who bought tenant insurance policies. The plaintiff claimed Public Storage sold tenant insurance to him and other storage consumers without properly disclosing that the company retains a “substantial portion” of the premiums. The suit claimed that the insurance program offered by Public Storage was “a hidden profit center for itself that kicks back unconscionable profits at the expense of consumers.” The suit, filed in Miami federal court, sought restitution for all of the insurance premiums paid to Public Storage by its customers over the past four years. Within three months of being retained, and just seven months before trial, we prevailed on a Summary Judgment Motion which dismissed the class’ RICO claim. The matter settled favorably two days before trial.