image description

Whether quietly resolving a high-stakes criminal investigation or defeating a multi-million dollar damages claim in the pre-trial stage, Cody Harris’ tenacious case strategies, compelling briefs, and talent for persuasion safeguards his client’s bottom line, reputation and even their freedom.

In addition to handling the white-collar, securities, appellate and business litigation detailed below, Cody also developed a first-hand understanding of a prosecutor’s mindset by spending a year trying and resolving cases at the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office. As a result, he can better anticipate his opposing side’s motivations, use of evidence, objections and other tactics. Moreover, as a constitutional law instructor for the Stanford Continuing Studies Program, Cody routinely explains complicated legal concepts to laymen, a significant advantage when presenting a complex case to a jury.

Prior to attending law school, Cody worked with business clients across a variety of industries as a management consultant, before serving as a communications director for a senior member of Congress.

Read moreShow less

Whether quietly resolving a high-stakes criminal investigation or defeating a multi-million dollar damages claim in the pre-trial stage, Cody Harris’ tenacious case strategies, compelling briefs, and talent for persuasion safeguards his client’s bottom line, reputation and even their freedom.

In addition to handling the white-collar, securities, appellate and business litigation detailed below, Cody also developed a first-hand understanding of a prosecutor’s mindset by spending a year trying and resolving cases at the Santa Clara District Attorney’s Office. As a result, he can better anticipate his opposing side’s motivations, use of evidence, objections and other tactics. Moreover, as a constitutional law instructor for the Stanford Continuing Studies Program, Cody routinely explains complicated legal concepts to laymen, a significant advantage when presenting a complex case to a jury.

Prior to attending law school, Cody worked with business clients across a variety of industries as a management consultant, before serving as a communications director for a senior member of Congress.

Genentech v. JHL Biotech

We represented Genentech as the victim of a massive trade secret theft by its former scientists and founders of JHL Biotech, which was developing biosimilar versions of Genentech’s cancer medicines. The Keker team reported the theft to the DOJ and FBI and cooperated with the government’s investigation, which led to the indictment, guilty pleas, and prison time for JHL’s founders and top executives. On the civil side, the team won a preliminary injunction forbidding JHL from commercializing its products. This broad injunction, which rested on a finding that Genentech had a likelihood of success on its trade secret misappropriation claims, led to a settlement with JHL, in which JHL agreed to abandon development of all four of its biosimilars of Genentech’s products, destroy all related cell lines, stipulate to a permanent injunction, fully cooperate with Genentech’s investigation, and reimburse Genentech for its legal fees.

MoreLess

Federal Trade Commission v. Qualcomm

We represent Qualcomm in a case brought by the FTC alleging that Qualcomm had failed to license its standard-essential patents at fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory (FRAND) royalty rates and that Qualcomm had engaged in exclusionary conduct that increased its competitors’ costs and reduced their ability and incentive to innovate. Following a month-long bench trial, the district court issued an injunction that would have forced Qualcomm to license rival chip suppliers and renegotiate its existing licenses with cellphone makers. In August of 2020 the Ninth Circuit reversed the district court’s judgment and vacated the injunction.

MoreLess

In Re: Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation

We are defending Qualcomm against antitrust claims made by a putative class of 250 million cellphone users (one of the largest class actions ever) alleging that Qualcomm had inflated mobile device prices through its standard-essential patent licensing practices. The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for interlocutory review of the court’s class certification order, and ultimately overturned certification, ruling that the district court erred in its choice of law analysis and found that differences in state antitrust laws preclude the uniform application of California’s Cartwright Act to antitrust actions filed by consumers nationwide. On remand, we eliminated the remaining claims via subsequent motions to dismiss and summary judgment.

MoreLess

Plaintiff v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.

Impax Laboratories, Inc. asked us to take over a false advertising case regarding the company's generic drug that had been litigated for two years. Within several months we took 20 depositions, secured five expert reports, and settled the case on very favorable terms for our client.

Lawyers

MoreLess

Plaintiffs v. Institutional Investor

Hawaii's former governor and other shareholders claimed a start-up company had unfairly washed them out. They brought a breach of fiduciary duty lawsuit against numerous investment banks and institutional investors, including our client. We won dismissal of the case at the trial court, and settled the case on favorable terms.

Lawyers

MoreLess

United States v. Executive

We represented an investment fund executive charged with criminal tax fraud related to a tax-shelter transaction that the fund designed and implemented. We resolved the matter by negotiating a plea to reduced charges.

MoreLess

Former Employees v. Lucasfilm Ltd.

We advised Lucasfilm Ltd. in an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and then represented Lucasfilm in a series of antitrust class actions brought by former employees of Lucasfilm, Google, Apple and Pixar. Plaintiffs alleged unlawful agreements related to hiring and employee retention. Plaintiffs and Lucasfilm reached a preliminary settlement of plaintiffs’ claims in July 2013.

MoreLess

Plaintiff v. Intuitive Surgical, Inc.

We defended Intuitive Surgical, Inc., a leading manufacturer of cutting-edge robotic surgery devices, from a securities class action. Plaintiffs alleged that Intuitive Surgical issued false and misleading statements regarding the company's financial results and prospects, when during the economic crisis of 2008, its financial results did not meet previously announced predictions. Plaintiffs’ lawyers filed a securities class action, which U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh dismissed with leave to amend. Then in a written opinion, Judge Koh agreed with each of our arguments, and dismissed the class action for the second time, this time with prejudice. Finally, the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the dismissal in a 23-page published opinion.

Lawyers

Practices

Industries

MoreLess

Class Action Plaintiffs v. Auditing Firms

We represented an audit firm in a purported class action brought by investors who blamed the auditors for failing to detect misconduct by investment firms. We prevailed in defeating class certification and the matter was resolved without any payment by our client.

Lawyers

MoreLess

Ziptronix v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company

We won summary judgment of non-infringement for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and its subsidiary TSMC, North America in a long-running patent lawsuit brought by North Carolina semiconductor company, Ziptronix, Inc. Ziptronix had asserted nine patents and more than 500 patent claims directed to TSMC’s manufacturing of semiconductors for use in backside-illumination image sensors used predominantly in smartphone cameras. On behalf of TSMC, we defeated Ziptronix’s claims by arguing that the territorial limits of U.S. patent law prohibited reaching TSMC’s business transactions and manufacturing operations in Taiwan.

MoreLess

Launiupoko Water Co., Inc. v. JM Eagle

To defend JM Eagle from a products liability, breach of implied warranty, and fraud action, we successfully drafted and argued a motion to dismiss. The motion was granted in its entirety, with the tort claims—which formed the backbone of the Complaint—all dismissed with prejudice.

Lawyers

MoreLess

County of Santa Clara v. Trump et al.

Representing the County of Santa Clara, Keker, Van Nest & Peters won a nationwide injunction against President Donald J. Trump’s January 2017 executive order that attempted to defund state and local governments deemed to be “sanctuary jurisdictions.” KVP argued that the executive order violated the Constitution’s separation of powers, the Tenth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In granting the motion for a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick determined that the County was likely to succeed on all four of its constitutional claims, and that the County is suffering immediate and irreparable harm.

MoreLess