Rylee Kercher Olm

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.

We currently represent Shareholder Representative Services (SRS) in its capacity as representative of the former shareholders of Ablation Frontiers Inc. in a post-merger dispute with Medtronic, Inc. in Delaware Chancery Court. Medtronic has refused to make milestone payments totaling $175 million that are due to the former shareholders based on recent FDA approvals of a novel catheter Ablation Frontiers invented and developed for treatment of atrial fibrillation prior to the merger

We represented Nextiva, Inc., as defendant and counterclaimant 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.

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.

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.

We defended Google against a 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.

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.

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.