Anjali Srinivasan specializes in high-stakes complex litigation. Whether her clients are large, well-established technology companies facing patent infringement claims, early-stage start-ups dealing with a founder’s dispute, or a longstanding family businesses engaged in employment litigation, Anjali strives to understand her client’s goals and help them efficiently meet them.
While Anjali focuses on strategies that bring her clients’ legal disputes to a positive and early resolution, she is also an experienced trial lawyer and can effectively take cases to trial, when necessary. She understands there is no one-size-fits-all approach and works to develop creative strategies to allow each of her clients to maximize their unique litigation goals.
Anjali also maintains an active pro bono practice that includes reproductive justice cases, excessive force and wrongful conviction matters, and immigration cases. She submitted an amicus brief to the United States Supreme Court on behalf of 154 economists in the Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health case. She formerly served as an Assistant District Attorney in the San Francisco District Attorney's office where she investigated and prosecuted police misconduct cases and reviewed wrongful conviction matters. She also clerked for the Hon. Thelton E. Henderson of the Northern District of California and the Hon. Barrington D. Parker of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.
California ex rel. Duncan et al. v. Sutter Health et al.
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.
Semiconductor Company v. Supplier
We are representing a semiconductor firm in a licensing dispute with its flash memory supplier related to above market royalty rates the supplier charged for technology with expired patents and outdated trade secrets. In the initial phase of arbitration, we convinced the tribunal to accept every single contract interpretation proffered by our client and reject the supplier’s contract interpretation wholly, which would have made an entire class of products royalty-bearing. The decision positioned our client for success as the arbitration continues.
Abdulaziz v. Twitter, Al-Ahmed v. Twitter, and Al-Sadhan v. X Corp.
We successfully defended Twitter and X Corp. in a series of civil lawsuits in federal courts in San Francisco and New York filed by Saudi Arabian political dissidents and journalists related to rogue Twitter employees who improperly accessed account information while acting as covert operatives for the Saudi Arabian government. Plaintiffs brought Racketeering, Alien Tort Statute, 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. We obtained dismissals with prejudice in each of these cases.
Amgen v. Coherus BioSciences
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.
Varian Medical Systems v. ViewRay
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.
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.
Cobarruviaz, et al. v. Instacart
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.
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.
08/15/2024
The 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America® and the Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch® in America featured 25 KVP attorneys. Read more
06/20/2024
A California state judge has handed Sutter Health a win following a weeks-long bench trial last year over a whistleblower's claims that the nonprofit hospital network violated the state's insurance fraud prevention statutes. Read more
January 21, 2022
This 2-day program, 1/24/22 and 1/25/22, qualifies for 6 hours of general CLE credit, 1 hour of ethics credit, and 1 hour of elimination of bias credit.
Read more
01/1/2022
Keker, Van Nest & Peters is pleased to announce that the firm has elevated David Rosen, Travis Silva, and Anjali Srinivasan to its partnership effective January 1, 2022. Read more
September 20, 2021
Lawyers from Keker, Van Nest & Peters filed an amicus brief on behalf of more than 150 distinguished economists today, in support of the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, to urge the United States Supreme Court to affirm a federal appellate court’s decision in Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization holding that pre-viability abortions are constitutionally protected. Read more
09/15/2015
The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Travis Hall, a Black 23-year-old San Francisco graphic designer and a recent Fordham University graduate, who was unlawfully detained, beaten and arrested by SFPD officers. Read more
09/09/2015
Ajay Krishnan and his team have partnered with the ACLU on behalf of young black man who was beaten by San Francisco police. Read more