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.

We are defending Dialpad in state and federal court against putative class actions that seek to apply California’s wiretapping law to AI-powered call technology. In state court, we won a ruling on demurrer that Dialpad is immune from liability for developing its AI product under the telephone company exemption of the California Invasion of Privacy Act. The ruling is among the first California court decisions to directly address how CIPA applies to AI-enabled telephony technologies. In federal court, we secured a voluntary dismissal by the plaintiff.

We represented 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.

We defended 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 successfully defended on appeal at the Ninth Circuit against objectors’ counsel.

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.

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 50 similar cases filed nationwide.

We serve as co-counsel with the ACLU foundations of California in a putative class action challenging unlawful immigration enforcement practices by the U.S. Border Patrol in the Eastern District of California. The lawsuit alleges that Border Patrol has engaged in a practice of unlawfully stopping and arresting long-term county residents based on skin color and appearance and then coercing them to accept deportation without due process. In April 2025, we obtained a preliminary injunction from the district court requiring federal agents to comply with constitutional and statutory standards of reasonable suspicion and probable cause when making stops and arrests within the district.