Rylee Kercher Olm is an associate at Keker Van, Nest & Peters where she represents clients in all facets of commercial litigation. Her experience spans state and federal courts at both trial and appellate levels. Rylee has handled diverse cases, including environmental litigation aimed at holding companies accountable for regulatory violations, and IP litigation defending companies against infringement claims. She has also tackled trade secret disputes for a pharmaceutical company, and false advertising and invasion of privacy cases for technology companies.
Rylee maintains an active pro bono practice. Currently, she is part of a team suing the state of Georgia seeking to enjoin its racially discriminatory voting laws.
Prior to joining Keker, Van Nest & Peters, Rylee served as a clerk to Judge Morgan Christen of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Anchorage, Alaska. She was formerly an associate in the San Francisco office of a large firm where she litigated environmental and energy matters involving CEQA, contract law, nuisance law, property issues, and Proposition 65.
Rylee earned her J.D. from Stanford Law School and her M.S. in Environment and Resources from Stanford. She graduated from the University of Pittsburgh, summa cum laude, with a B.A. in Environmental Studies.
Genentech v. JHL Biotech
We represented Genentech as the victim of a massive trade secret theft by its former scientists and founders of JHL Biotech, which was developing biosimilar versions of Genentech’s cancer medicines. The Keker team reported the theft to the DOJ and FBI and cooperated with the government’s investigation, which led to the indictment, guilty pleas, and prison time for JHL’s founders and top executives. On the civil side, the team won a preliminary injunction forbidding JHL from commercializing its products. This broad injunction, which rested on a finding that Genentech had a likelihood of success on its trade secret misappropriation claims, led to a settlement with JHL, in which JHL agreed to abandon development of all four of its biosimilars of Genentech’s products, destroy all related cell lines, stipulate to a permanent injunction, fully cooperate with Genentech’s investigation, and reimburse Genentech for its legal fees.
RingCentral, Inc. v. Nextiva, Inc.
We represented Nextiva, Inc., as defendant and counterclaimaint in a trade libel, defamation, and false advertising suit. We succeeded in significantly narrowing the case against Nextiva on summary judgment and then favorably resolved the remainder of the litigation on the eve of trial.
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.
Jawbone v. Google
We defended Google in a nine-patent case involving audio signal processing software brought by Jawbone in the Western District of Texas. After obtaining a Markman order that disposed of four of the nine patents, we successfully appealed the denial of Google's transfer motion to the Northern District of California. Shortly after the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals ordered the case transferred in a published decision, a favorable settlement was reached.
Jenam Tech v. Google
We defended Google against series of patent cases alleging that Google’s network protocol infringes Jenam’s patents. A three-judge Federal Circuit panel ordered the district court to transfer the case out of the Western District of Texas, ruling that the court abused its discretion by denying Google’s motion to move the case to California. Following the transfer to San Francisco federal court, the firm achieved a stay of all district court proceedings pending inter partes review proceedings before the PTAB. Google successfully invalidated three Jenam patents and the case subsequently settled.
Asian Americans Advancing Justice v. Raffensperger
With Asian Americans Advancing Justice and the Asian Law Caucus, we filed suit against the state of Georgia seeking to enjoin its racially discriminatory voting law. Among other problematic provisions, Georgia’s Senate Bill 202 shortens the window to apply for mail-in ballots; restricts access to secure drop boxes; voters to satisfy onerous, unnecessary ID requirements before voting by mail; and prohibits elections officials from proactively mailing ballot applications to registered voters.
Carmody v. City and County of San Francisco
We secured a landmark settlement on behalf of Bryan Carmody, a journalist whose reporting materials were seized in an illegal raid on his home by the San Francisco Police Department. In addition to monetary compensation, the City of San Francisco and the SFPD committed to enhanced protections for San Francisco’s journalists, including amending orders for special circumstances warrants and subpoenas and ensuring that police comply with California’s Shield Law.
02/09/2022
The Daily Journal has included the firm's win for the Oakland A's, which prohibits Schnitzer Steel from releasing toxic waste into the air, soil and groundwater at Howard’s Terminal in West Oakland, among the Top Verdicts of 2021. Read more
September 16, 2019
The issues at stake in the case illustrate the growing importance of trade secrets protection to life sciences companies and the IP professionals who serve them. Read more
September 09, 2019
Taiwan’s JHL Biotech has agreed to stop developing copycat versions of four Genentech biologics as part of a deal to end high-stakes trade secrets litigation. Read more
September 09, 2019
Genentech reaches a settlement agreement with JHL Biotech, which sees the latter cease development of biosimilars to Genentech’s products. Read more