Christina Lee represents plaintiffs and defendants in high-stakes litigation. She focuses her practice on intellectual property disputes, complex privacy cases, and commercial litigation.
Christina has represented companies in high-profile patent litigation matters involving software, video streaming, and medical devices. She has an extensive track record of success in defending major technology clients in cutting-edge privacy class action cases. She also represented the former shareholders of FerroKin BioSciences against Shire Pharmaceuticals in a bench trial in the Delaware Court of Chancery, which awarded the firm’s clients more than $80 million, including an overdue milestone payment, attorney’s fees, and interest.
Christina also maintains a robust pro bono practice. In collaboration with the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights and the American Civil Liberties Union, she represented three immigrant families who were separated at the United States-Mexico border in 2018 in a federal lawsuit seeking damages in the Northern District of California. She has also represented several leading immigration nonprofit organizations in advocating for changes to immigration law and policy.
Prior to joining Keker, Van Nest & Peters, Christina served as a law clerk to Judge Milan D. Smith, Jr. of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and to Judge Gonzalo P. Curiel of the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
Christina earned her J.D., magna cum laude, from Harvard Law School and her B.A. in history, summa cum laude, from Yale. During law school, she participated in Harvard Law School's Supreme Court Litigation Clinic, mediated disputes in small claims court through the Harvard Mediation Program, and co-chaired the 21st National Asian Pacific American Conference on Law and Public Policy.
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.
Abbott Diabetes Care v. Dexcom
We defended Dexcom in litigation brought by Abbott in the District of Delaware asserting patents targeting Dexcom’s CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) technology for addressing diabetes.
McCoy v. Alphabet Inc. and Hammerling, et al. v. Google LLC
We successfully defended Google in two putative class action lawsuits filed in the Northern District of California asserting privacy, contract, and consumer law claims regarding Google’s alleged data collection practices related to Android smartphones. After we successfully moved the court to compel the first case to arbitration, the case was filed a second time with different named plaintiffs. We moved to dismiss the second case and secured a complete dismissal with prejudice of all claims in the lawsuit. The Ninth Circuit affirmed our trial court win.
In re: Google Location History Litigation
We are defending Google in consolidated cases on behalf of a worldwide putative class of mobile device users that are challenging Google’s location-data practices. We obtained a dismissal at the pleading stage of all of plaintiffs’ claims, including a dismissal with prejudice of plaintiffs’ claims for violation of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. Following dismissal with prejudice of what plaintiffs viewed as their most valuable claim, the case subsequently reached a settlement, which we are currently defending on appeal at the Ninth Circuit against objectors’ counsel.
Glaukos v. Ivantis
We represented Ivantis, Inc., the maker of a revolutionary eye stent designed to treat glaucoma, in a case brought by competitor Glaukos Corporation alleging infringement of two of Glaukos’s patents.
Shareholder Representative Services v. Shire Pharmaceuticals
We represented Shareholder Representative Services (SRS) in its role as representative of the former shareholders of FerroKin Biosciences in a post-merger dispute with Shire Pharmaceuticals, which had refused to make a $45 million milestone payment related to the development of an experimental iron chelation drug. After a four-day bench trial, the Delaware Chancery Court entered judgment in favor of SRS, ruling in a 77-page opinion that the former FerroKin shareholders were entitled to the overdue $45 million milestone, as well as five years of interest on the payment and their attorneys’ fees and costs, which totaled more than $80 million. The judgment of the Court of Chancery was unanimously affirmed by the Delaware Supreme Court.
Wilbur P.G. v. USA
We represented three immigrant families intentionally separated by the Trump Administration in 2018. Asserting novel claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act, we vigorously pursued the case until the eve of trial, when the government agreed to the largest settlement out of any of the fifty similar cases filed nationwide.
05/07/2025
In a landmark legal victory, three immigrant families have secured sizable settlements from the U.S. government for trauma suffered during family separations at the southern border in 2018. The settlement, announced in November 2024, represents the largest payout among dozens of similar cases nationwide stemming from the controversial Trump-era family separation policy. Read more
01/18/2024
Keker, Van Nest & Peters is pleased to announce that the firm has elevated associates Andrew Bruns, Cody Gray, Maya James, Christina Lee, and Franco Muzzio to Partner, Kristen Lovin to Of Counsel and Senior IP & Technology Litigator and Hamilton Jordan to Of Counsel, effective January 1, 2024. This class marks the largest group of associates promoted to partner since the firm was founded in 1978. 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