We represent Qualcomm in an alleged $6 billion securities class action brought by investors claiming that various statements regarding Qualcomm’s licensing and business model were false and misleading. Several officers and directors, including former CEOs and other executives, are named as individual defendants. As the case neared a critical juncture, we were brought in to guide the case through class certification, summary judgment, and trial if necessary. Our defense narrowed class certification, and amid pending motions, plaintiffs sought peace and agreed to a $75 million settlement.

We represent a class of more than 1,000 people held at California City Detention Facility who argue that the facility fails to provide for their basic human needs—adequate clothing, basic medical care, conditions of confinement consistent with civil (rather than criminal) detention, disability accommodations, and access to lawyers. Working with the Prison Law Office, the ACLU National Prison Project, and the California Collaborative for Immigrant Justice, we secured class certification and a preliminary injunction requiring ICE and DHS to provide constitutionally adequate medical care, enhanced access to counsel, and temperature-appropriate clothing and blankets for people held at California City. Importantly, the court also agreed to appoint an independent monitor to ensure delivery of adequate medical care.

We filed an amicus brief in the California Supreme Court on behalf of the Crime Survivors for Safety and Justice network that contributed to a decision banning the use of unaffordable bail for criminal defendants who pose no threat to public safety in California. The brief, which presented research cited by the Court, explained that the unconstitutional use of excessive bail not only violates the California Constitution, but increases future criminality for detainees and undermines public safety from a holistic perspective.

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 defended Qualcomm at trial against the FTC’s claims that it had failed to license its standard-essential patents at fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory royalty rates and that Qualcomm had engaged in exclusionary conduct that increased its competitors’ costs and reduced their ability to innovate. We won an appeal before the Ninth Circuit that reversed and vacated the district court’s injunction.

We defended Qualcomm against antitrust claims made by a putative class of 250 million cellphone users (one of the largest class actions ever) alleging that Qualcomm had inflated mobile device prices through its standard-essential patent licensing practices. The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for interlocutory review of the court’s class certification order, and ultimately overturned certification, ruling that the district court erred in its choice of law analysis and found that differences in state antitrust laws preclude the uniform application of California’s Cartwright Act to antitrust actions filed by consumers nationwide. On remand, we eliminated the remaining claims via subsequent motions to dismiss and summary judgment, resulting in a complete victory for Qualcomm.

We represented Zosano Pharma and its current and former CEOs in a consolidated securities class action concerning alleged misstatements regarding the company’s likelihood of FDA approval of its innovative lead product candidate, a migraine patch. The patch unexpectedly received a rejection by the FDA and then Zosano saw a drastic stock drop, which triggered plaintiffs to file this securities action and a follow-on derivative case. We prevailed on a motion to dismiss the purported class action and convinced the derivative action plaintiffs to also dismiss their case.

We defeated a class action lawsuit against Google, in which a putative nationwide class of restaurants alleged that Google’s food ordering products violated the Lanham Act and constituted counterfeiting. When granting our motion to dismiss, the court strongly implied that it would consider sanctioning the plaintiffs’ lawyers who had brought the case, identifying them by name in the court’s order. Plaintiffs thereafter dismissed their case with prejudice in exchange for an agreement that Google would not seek sanctions or fees.

We defended Intuitive Surgical, Inc.—a leading manufacturer of cutting-edge robotic surgery devices—from a securities class action, as well as related shareholder derivative suits. We represented Intuitive through motions to dismiss, discovery, class cert, and summary judgment. Ultimately, the case settled favorably after we filed our summary judgment motion, but before the court had ruled on it. We also successfully resolved related shareholder derivative litigation in California and Delaware state courts.

We represented Intuitive Surgical in a securities fraud class action challenging statements the company made regarding its expected growth and financial health. After persuading the court to dismiss the complaint twice, we successfully defended the dismissal in the Ninth Circuit, securing a unanimous, 23-page published opinion—a rarity in any securities case.

Representing the County of Santa Clara, we won a nationwide injunction against President Trump’s 2017 executive order that attempted to defund state and local governments deemed to be “sanctuary jurisdictions.” We argued that the executive order violated the Constitution’s separation of powers, the Tenth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In granting the motion for a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick determined that the County was likely to succeed on all four of its constitutional claims, and that the County was suffering immediate and irreparable harm. The Ninth Circuit affirmed.

We advised Lucasfilm Ltd. in an investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice and then represented Lucasfilm in a series of antitrust class actions brought by former employees of Lucasfilm, Google, Apple and Pixar. Plaintiffs alleged unlawful agreements related to hiring and employee retention. Plaintiffs and Lucasfilm reached a preliminary settlement of plaintiffs’ claims in July 2013.

We represented an audit firm in a purported class action brought by investors who blamed the auditors for failing to detect misconduct by investment firms. We prevailed in defeating class certification and the matter was resolved without any payment by our client.

To defend JM Eagle from a products liability, breach of implied warranty, and fraud action, we successfully drafted and argued a motion to dismiss. The motion was granted in its entirety, with the tort claims—which formed the backbone of the Complaint—all dismissed with prejudice.