We successfully defended Google against patent claims brought in the Northern District of California by LookSmart, which targeted Google’s search technology. The court dismissed the case, finding the patent was abstract under Section 101.

We represented Oregon State University in a lawsuit against the Pac-12 Conference to determine control of the Pac-12, in the wake of the announced departures of 10 conference members. We achieved a temporary restraining order that prevented the 10 departing conference members from wrongfully seizing control of the Pac-12 and ultimately negotiated a settlement.

We defended Comcast Cable Communications, LLC as part of a large joint-defense group handling patent infringement claims related to video-on-demand services. The plaintiff, Acacia Media Technology, sought hundreds of millions in royalties from more than 40 cable TV, satellite TV, and Internet streaming companies, alleging its patents covered virtually all transmission of compressed digital video or audio files. After extensive claim-construction proceedings, U.S. District Judge James Ware held that the patents were invalid and granted summary judgment for our client and the other defendants. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that judgment.

We won summary judgment dismissing Sunnyvale-based Finisar Corporation’s patent infringement claim against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. We first convinced U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup to cut potential damages from $590 million to $140 million, and later to invalidate the data transmission patent at issue. Finisar appealed, however the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling.

We won a complete victory in a multi-million dollar contract dispute involving information-technology services.

We represented Univision, the country's leading Spanish language television network, in a breach of contract jury trial. Televisa, a Mexican multimedia conglomerate which supplied Univision with its most popular Spanish language programs, attempted to terminate a long-term exclusive licensing agreement and sought more than $100 million in damages. The case was settled during trial on favorable terms. We also represented Univision in a bench trial which sought declaratory judgment to prevent Televisa from broadcasting over the Internet the same highly popular programs that it exclusively licensed to Univision. We won a complete victory at trial.

We won a complete defense judgment in favor of McKesson after a month-long trial of a qui tam action alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statute. The trial victory allowed McKesson to avoid paying nearly $1 billion in fines, and to avoid the collateral penalties that government agencies can impose on companies found to have paid illegal kickbacks. The Justice Department’s complaint charged McKesson with paying kickbacks to a nursing home operator in the form of underpriced services, and with submitting “legally false claims” to the government. After we had the whistleblower dismissed, a key victory, we then won dismissal of related claims that the nursing home’s supplier subsidiary failed to comply with Medicare supplier standards. With the case’s scope significantly narrowed, we led our client through a bench trial which featured 24 witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and post-trial briefing. The judge ruled in our client’s favor, vindicating McKesson and its employees. This victory was listed by the National Law Journal as one of the year's five most significant trial wins.

We successfully represented the Major League Baseball Players Association in its high-profile battle with the U.S. government. In August 2009, an en banc panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit ruled that federal investigators unlawfully seized drug-testing records of more than 100 athletes. In September 2010, the court issued a revised opinion that upheld its ruling.

By winning a defense verdict in this federal jury trial, we protected Twitter Inc. from a patent infringement suit and $40 million damages claim. Virginia-based VS Technologies had obtained a patent for “an interactive virtual community of famous people,” and sued Twitter over its virtual community technology. During the six-day trial, we argued that Twitter's Browse Interests feature did not infringe the terms of the patent and that in fact, the patent was invalid. The jury agreed, and found Twitter not liable for patent infringement.

We served as lead counsel for Relator Robert Baker in a qui tam False Claims Act case against Community Health Systems. This case alleged the defendants manipulated the Medicaid funding program by a scheme which resulted in the illegal receipt of federally funded Medicaid payments. Our client sought the maximum amount allowed to a qui tam plaintiff and the United States sought to recover damages and civil penalties from the defendants, arising from false and/or fraudulent statements, records, and claims of FCA violations. Community Health Systems eventually agreed to end the litigation with a settlement of $75 million.

We represented LinkedIn in a patent-infringement suit filed by Bascom Research. We obtained a stay of discovery pending the Supreme Court’s decision in Alice, then won summary judgment invalidating all asserted claims. The victory was chosen by The Daily Journal as one of the year's "Top Defense Verdicts."

We are defending Google against a five-patent case brought by Daedalus Prime in the Western District of Texas targeting alleged power-management functionalities in Google’s Tensor system-on-chip products and Axion processors.

We represented Twitter in a patent-infringement suit brought by Summit 6 LLC in the Northern District of Texas. In prior cases in the same court, Summit 6 had obtained large settlements and won an $18 million judgment against Samsung. Before the close of discovery, we secured a walk-away settlement for Twitter, with Twitter paying nothing.

We defended LinkedIn against a nationwide putative class action alleging fraud, unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims arising from allegedly invalid activity on LinkedIn’s ad platform. We won a motion to dismiss the case with prejudice, where the court found that the plaintiffs had failed to plead any viable theory.