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, Mr. Harris 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, Mr. Harris 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 represent Genentech in a federal trade secret theft lawsuit alleging that former Genentech scientists, several of whom have also been charged criminally by the Department of Justice, stole confidential and proprietary information to help a foreign company develop biosimilar versions of Genentech medicines.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
October 26, 2018
New York’s attorney general filed a lawsuit against ExxonMobil claiming the company defrauded shareholders by minimizing the expected effect environmental regulations would have on their stocks’ value, an unprecedented attempt to hold oil companies responsible for climate change, legal experts say. Read more
August 06, 2018
The podcast features people the that have made a difference in other peoples' lives, in this episode a fundraising campaign for the Southern Poverty Law Center. Read more
Keker, Van Nest & Peters partner Cody Harris was named among California's Top 40 Lawyers Under Age 40 by the Daily Journal. Read more
March 21, 2018
Keker Attorneys Help Get Key Victory in a Fight Over Immigration, Federal Funding Read more
November 21, 2017
A California federal judge on Monday permanently blocked the enforcement of an executive order issued by President Donald Trump in January that calls for withholding federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities, saying it violates various provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Read more
November 20, 2017
In a historic ruling issued today, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick declared unconstitutional the key provision of the Trump Administration’s Executive Order targeting “sanctuary jurisdictions,” and permanently enjoined its enforcement nationwide. Read more
October 06, 2017
Longtime California trial staple Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP found success for a wide range of clients this year, winning a nationwide injunction against a presidential executive order, defending Arista Networks in a groundbreaking copyright suit and resolving a feud between two prominent San Francisco philanthropists. Read more
August 30, 2017
San Francisco attorney Cody Harris turned to GoFundMe to counteract a planned extremist rally
August 21, 2017
Keker, Van Nest & Peters partner Cody Harris created the Jewish Bar Association of San Francisco's fundraising campaign, “Adopt-a-Nazi (Not Really),” which benefits the Southern Poverty Law Center. Read more
July 24, 2017
A U.S. District Court has denied the federal government’s request to reconsider a preliminary injunction blocking President Donald Trump’s Executive Order defunding “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Read more
April 30, 2017
Keker, Van Nest & Peters Partner Cody Harris was featured on MSNBC's The Point to discuss defeating President Trump's Executive Order targeting funding for "sanctuary jurisdictions." Read more
The nationwide injunction to block Trump's executive order defunding sanctuary cities was a win for lawyers for Santa Clara County and their pro bono counsel at Keker Van
Nest & Peters. Read more
April 26, 2017
Keker, Van Nest & Peter's win blocking President Trump's Executive Order to defund "sanctuary jurisdictions" was featured in the Daily Journal Read more
In a historic ruling issued today, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick granted the County of Santa Clara’s request to temporarily enjoin President Trump and his administration from enforcing an Executive Order provision that would withdraw all federal funding from the County and jurisdictions across the country deemed “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Read more
Keker, Van Nest & Peter's win blocking Pres. Trump's Executive Order to defund "sanctuary jurisdictions" was featured in Alison Frankel's On The Case column for Reuters. Read more
During a recent hearing in which Keker, Van Nest & Peters represented Santa Clara County, Bloomberg news reported that Trump’s Executive Order Targeting Sanctuary Jurisdictions was met with skepticism from a federal judge. Read more
February 09, 2017
In conjunction with the County of Santa Clara, KVP attorneys have sued the Trump Administration over the President’s Executive Order threatening to deny “sanctuary jurisdictions” federal funds. Read more
Cody Harris and Matan Shacham will officially join the partnership on January 1, 2017. Read more
Michael Celio and Cody Harris defeat securities class action. Read more
The Ninth Circuit affirmed Intuitive Surgical Inc.'s win in a securities fraud class action. Read more
Michael Celio and Cody Harris secured a complete vindication for Intuitive Surgical Inc., a leading manufacturer of cutting-edge robotic surgery devices, from an aggressive securities class action. Read more
- Speaker, "The Fraud-on-the-Market Doctrine: Significant Trends, Developments and Legal Challenges in 2018," Knowledge Group, 2018
- “Prior Conviction, Present Danger: Felony Liability Under The Food, Drug And Cosmetic Act,” Westlaw Journal White-Collar Crime, 2015
- "A Problem of Proof: How Routine Destruction of Court Records Routinely Destroys a Statutory Remedy," Stanford Law Review, 2007