Michelle Ybarra is a leading intellectual property and class action litigator who has delivered decisive wins for clients in courts around the country. A fierce advocate and talented strategist, she regularly leads high-stakes, bet-the-company litigation—often involving emerging technologies and issues of first impression. Her clients include tech giants and innovators alike, such as OpenAI, Google, Netflix, LinkedIn, Instacart, SpinX Games, and Moonton.
Michelle has also effected sweeping changes through her pro bono work—from challenging California’s Proposition 8 on behalf of individual married plaintiffs, to winning an Administrative Procedures Act challenge against California’s lethal injection protocol on behalf of a San Quentin death row inmate, to advancing access to reproductive healthcare for California families.
A thought leader on the legal frontier, Michelle regularly writes and speaks on the intersection of law and technology, with a focus on copyright, patent law, artificial intelligence, and online gaming. Michelle serves on the Board of California ChangeLawyers and is the Chair of Keker's Hiring Committee.
Michelle’s leadership and impact have earned her repeated recognition as a Woman Leader in Tech Law by The Recorder, and in 2024 she was named one of California’s Top AI Lawyers by the Daily Journal.
OpenAI Copyright Cases
OpenAI tapped Keker as lead trial counsel in a series of copyright lawsuits that will establish the boundaries of copyright fair use as applied to generative AI. The cases include claims brought by newspapers, authors, and other media outlets alleging that the training and outputs of Open AI's large language models infringe their works.
Broadcom v. Netflix
We defended Netflix against a 12-patent case Broadcom filed in the Central District of California. After transferring the case to the Northern District of California, we successfully invalidated 9 patents in the district court or through inter partes review. Broadcom agreed to dismiss the remaining three patents, and the Court entered judgment in favor of Netflix.
Singular v. Google
We defended Google against an AI-related patent infringement suit brought by Singular Computing that alleged Google’s TPU chips (custom-designed hardware used for training and inference of large AI models) infringed Singular’s patents. After Google successfully invalidated some of the patent claims through inter partes review, the KVP team led Google’s defense in a 2-week trial in Boston federal court on a narrowed set of claims. Shortly before closing arguments, Singular accepted a pending settlement offer.
TopDevz v. LinkedIn
We defended LinkedIn against a nationwide putative class action alleging fraud, unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims arising from allegedly invalid activity on LinkedIn’s ad platform. We won a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, where the court found that the plaintiffs had failed to plead any viable theory.
Riot Games, Inc. v. Shanghai Moonton Technology Co. Ltd.
We represented Moonton, a Chinese video game developer, in a lawsuit filed by Riot Games asserting claims of copyright and trademark infringement relating to Riot’s League of Legends video game. We filed a motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing that Riot should be required to pursue its claims in China because its lawsuit was intertwined with and inconsistent with a pending Chinese lawsuit filed by Riot’s parent company, Tencent. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the lawsuit.
Left Field v. Google
We defeated a class action lawsuit against Google, in which a putative nationwide class of restaurants alleged that Google’s food ordering products violated the Lanham Act and constituted counterfeiting. When granting our motion to dismiss, the court strongly implied that it would consider sanctioning the plaintiffs’ lawyers who had brought the case, identifying them by name in the court’s order. Plaintiffs thereafter dismissed their case with prejudice in exchange for an agreement that Google would not seek sanctions or fees.
Essential Access Health, et. al v. Azar
We represented Essential Access Health, California’s primary Title X grantee, in a suit challenging the Trump administration’s draconian new family planning regulations as unconstitutional and violative of the Administrative Procedures Act. In April 2019, we won an injunction preventing the regulations from taking effect in California and protecting access to quality reproductive care for the one million Californians who depend on Title X services each year.
Cotter, et al. v. Lyft, Inc.
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.
Bowe v. Public Storage
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.
United States v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., et al.
As lead counsel for McGraw Hill and its Standard and Poor’s division, we defended our client from the government’s suit which sought at least $5 billion in penalties under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act. The government accused S&P of fraud in its rating of hundreds of residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) in the years leading up to the financial crisis in 2008. McGraw Hill ultimately settled with the government, and more than 20 states that made similar claims under state laws.
Bascom Research, LLC v. LinkedIn Corporation
We represented LinkedIn in a patent-infringement suit filed by Bascom Research. We obtained a stay of discovery pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice, then won summary judgment invalidating all asserted claims. The victory was chosen by The Daily Journal as one of the year's "Top Defense Verdicts."
State of New York v. Intel Corp.
We represented Intel in an antitrust suit brought by the New York Attorney General, accusing the company of using unlawful means to secure exclusive agreements for sales of its computer chips. We significantly narrowed the case through pre-trial motions that resulted in the dismissal of several of plaintiff’s claims. Shortly before trial, we settled the case for just $6.5 million.
Plaintiffs v. Sacramento Casino Royale
We successfully represented four residents of Sacramento County who sued a California card room for offering “Vegas style” games in violation of the California Constitution and Penal Code. On the eve of trial, the Bureau of Gambling Control instituted state-wide rule-making to address the issues raised by Plaintiffs’ complaint.
06/11/2025
The Recorder interviewed Michelle Ybarra, a finalist for the 2025 Women Leader in Tech Law, Intellectual Property Award. This is the second consecutive year that Ybarra is recognized in the annual California Legal Awards. Read more
4/24/2025
The Recorder announced the honorees for its annual California Legal Awards and revealed that Keker, Van Nest & Peters and four attorneys are honorees and finalists in several categories. Read more
12/18/2024
In an article for Westlaw Today and Reuters Legal News, Keker partners Paven Malhotra, Michelle Ybarra, and Matan Shacham analyze the U.S. Copyright Office's report on artificial intelligence and deepfakes. Read more
10/16/2024
Michelle Ybarra is interviewed by The Recorder for her recognition as a 2024 Women Leader in Tech Law Litigation. Read more
08/16/2024
Bob Van Nest, Rachael Meny, and Michelle Ybarra are featured in Law.com’s 2024 California Legal Awards. Read more
07/29/2024
Keker, Van Nest & Peters partners connect with the Daily Journal on how the firm has established itself at the forefront of intellectual property within Silicon Valley, particularly in the evolving field of artificial intelligence. Read more
07/24/2024
Michelle Ybarra is featured among Daily Journal's 2024 Top Artificial Intelligence Lawyers in California. Read more
11/09/2022
Representing Shanghai Moonton Technology Co., Ltd., Keker, Van Nest & Peters lawyers secured the dismissal of a copyright lawsuit filed by Riot Games, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Read more
August 14, 2019
Michelle Ybarra and Erin Meyer were named among California's Top 40 Lawyers Under 40 by the Daily Journal for their litigation victories. Read more
April 26, 2019
On April 26 District Court Judge Edward Chen granted a statewide preliminary injunction in Essential Access Health v. Azar, et al., a lawsuit challenging the Trump Administration’s sweeping changes to the federal Title X family planning program. Read more
March 22, 2019
Representing Essential Access Health and Dr. Melissa Marshall, Keker, Van Nest & Peters filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent the Department of Health and Human Services from enforcing sweeping changes to the Title X Family Planning Program. Read more
November 12, 2018
Women Leaders in Tech Law through their work in courtrooms, boardrooms and classrooms, are helping the law and the legal profession address novel issues raised by technological advances. Read more
June 19, 2017
Facebook Inc. asked a California federal judge on Monday to toss a putative class action alleging the company misled advertisers with false consumer viewing metrics. Read more
02/16/2016
Bob Van Nest, David Silbert, Dan Jackson, and Michelle Ybarra used a 2014 U.S. Supreme Court decision to prove that patents in lawsuits against Facebook Inc. and LinkedIn Corp. were invalid based on subject matter ineligibility. Read more
01/27/2016
Rachael Meny, Jamie Slaughter and their team removed a major threat to Lyft's business model when they settled a proposed class action lawsuit without classifying drivers as employees. Read more
01/06/2016
Both attorneys have played key roles in several of the firm’s recent noteworthy matters. Read more
01/06/2015
David Silbert and his team score a win for LinkedIn. Read more
10/15/2014
One name mentioned by virtually everyone the Daily Journal spoke to was Keker & Van Nest. Lawyers at some of the best firms in California said they model themselves after the litigation powerhouse. Read more
04/24/2013
Ben Hur and Michelle Ybarra will cover what constitutes “cloning,” and how courts and current IP laws address this hot topic. Read more
02/14/2012
The New York Attorney General claimed Intel violated federal and state antitrust statutes by maintaining an illegal monopoly in the microprocessor market. Read more
- Panelist, “Generative AI & The Law: Latest Developments & Ethical Issues,” Association of Corporate Counsel, 2025
- “Report on Deepfakes: What the Copyright Office Found and What Comes Next in AI Regulation” Reuters Legal News, 2024, co-authored with Paven Malhotra and Matan Shacham
- Panelist, “Sports & Entertainment Trends in 2024,” Corporate Counsel Women of Color, 2024
- Panelist, “Averting IP Debacles, Lessons From the Trenches,” Corporate Counsel Women of Color, 2022
- Panelist, “The Ever-Changing Patent Litigation Playbook: Exploring the Latest Trends and Litigation Tactics,” Association of Corporate Counsel, 2020
- Panelist, “Click Here to Accept Terms: Litigating Online Contracts,” Association of Corporate Counsel, 2019
- Presenter, “Videogame Clones: Evolution or Theft?” Berkeley Center for Law & Technology, 2018
- Panelist, “Trade Secret and Employee Mobility, San Francisco” Bridgeport Continuing Legal Education, 2017
- "Four Tips for Fending Off IP Litigation," The Daily Journal, 2016, co-authored with Justina Sessions
- "Defeating Mobile Game Clones: Why Copyright Protection is Not Enough," VentureBeat, 2013, co-authored with Ben Hur
- "When Clones Attack: How to Protect Social/Mobile Games from Copying," Intellectual Property Today, 2012, co-authored with Ben Hur
- "Three Ways Game Developers Can Avoid Cloning," TechRepublic, 2012