Dan Jackson

We represented Sutter Health in defeating a qui tam action alleging violation of California's Insurance Frauds Prevention Act in a case related to charges for health care services. Following a seven-week bench trial, we obtained a complete victory. The judge ruled that there was no fraud, that Sutter charged for recovery room care that was “medically ordered, appropriate, and supervised,” and that Sutter’s charges were consistent with standard industry billing practices.

We represented secure networking company Fortinet, winning a complete defense verdict after a four-week jury trial in Santa Clara Superior Court where plaintiff Alorica sought compensatory damages of more than $200 million, plus additional enhancements for punitive damages. The jury found that Fortinet was not liable on Alorica’s claims of fraud and breach of warranty. KVP was retained a few months before the trial date, and in short order the defense team obtained several favorable pretrial rulings. Prior to the jury verdict, the KVP team also obtained directed verdicts on punitive damages and plaintiff’s largest claim for compensatory damages.

We represent the PGA TOUR in an antitrust lawsuit filed by 11 professional golfers who left the PGA TOUR and joined LIV Golf. We defeated plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order seeking to force the PGA TOUR to allow them to play in the FedExCup Playoffs. We also recently won a motion to compel subpoena compliance from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund and its Governor, Yasir Al-Rumayyan.

We successfully defended Google against putative class action claims that YouTube is rife with copyright infringement and encourages the piracy of uploaded videos by removing copyright management information. The plaintiff, Maria Schneider, was an American composer and jazz orchestra leader, and the class challenged YouTube’s right to immunity under the safe harbor of the DMCA. We were hired three months before the case’s June 2023 trial date. After Judge Donato denied class certification, the KVP team prevailed in two very successful pretrial hearings, which dramatically limited the plaintiffs’ case, excluded their liability expert, and preserved strong licensing defenses for YouTube.

We defended Comcast Cable Communications, LLC as part of a large joint-defense group handling patent infringement claims related to video-on-demand services. The plaintiff, Acacia Media Technology, sought hundreds of millions in royalties from more than 40 cable TV, satellite TV, and Internet streaming companies, alleging its patents covered virtually all transmission of compressed digital video or audio files. After extensive claim-construction proceedings, U.S. District Judge James Ware held that the patents were invalid and granted summary judgment for our client and the other defendants. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that judgment.

On behalf of a real estate brokerage firm and several of its subsidiaries, we successfully moved to dismiss RICO claims relating to the valuation and sale of real estate, and successfully defended that victory before the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the dismissal without leave to amend in a published opinion.

In a suit raising novel issues of franchise law, we represented a national fashion retailer in a breach of contract suit filed by our client's former Middle East distributor. A federal San Francisco judge granted our summary judgment motion. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s order, dismissing the case in our client’s favor.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appointed our firm to represent a sexual-harassment victim whose case was dismissed on summary judgment. We were able to obtain a reversal.

We represented a semiconductor company in a landmark trade secret misappropriation case. Our client sought more than $100 million in damages and an injunction. We won an interlocutory appeal at an early stage of the case, making this the first appellate case in California to address the circumstances in which a trade secret plaintiff may obtain pretrial discovery. We settled the case for a confidential amount while a jury trial was underway. This case remains one of the leading California precedents on this issue.

We successfully defended the Alameda County District Attorney and the District Attorney's Office from accusations of gender discrimination. Working with top female attorneys in the D.A.’s office, we proved the plaintiff’s allegations were unfounded and secured summary judgment.

We represented TSMC against China's then-leading semiconductor manufacturer, SMIC, in the largest trade secret misuse case tried to date. SMIC owed its very existence to technology stolen from our client. Following a jury verdict on liability in favor of TSMC, SMIC agreed to pay $200 million in cash and approximately $130 million of its company stock. The case serves as precedent for the strong protection afforded by California's trade secret statute, even where the actual theft occurred in Asia.

For more than a decade, we have represented the San Diego County Water Authority in litigation against the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD), the regional water wholesaler for most of Southern California. We have led them through three separate trials, and represented them in three separate appeals, resulting in more than $100 million in recovered damages, interest and attorneys’ fees, plus legal victories that have provided more than $1 billion in long-term benefit to the Water Authority.

We defended our clients Netflix, Inc. and Roku Corporation in a U.S. International Trade Commission complaint filed by Rovi Corporation. The complaint accused our clients, along with Mitsubishi Electric Corp., LG Electronics Inc., and Vizio Inc., of infringing several patents related to interactive program guides. The complaint sought an order banning television and media-player makers from entering the U.S. By the time of the trial, the other defendants had settled and our clients faced four patents. We successfully defended our clients at trial, with the ALJ finding one of the patents invalid and none of the patents infringed, as well as no actionable importation or available remedy. The ITC confirmed there was no violation. Rovi then pursued the matter in District Court with three of the same patents used in the ITC investigation as well as two additional patents. We won summary judgment of invalidity under Alice on all five asserted patents, which the Federal Circuit affirmed summarily.