We represented limited partnership owners of the Oakland Raiders in a breach of fiduciary duty action against the team's general partner, Al Davis. The suit sought to confirm our client's partnership rights and prevent the diminishment of its partnership share. The case was settled before trial on favorable terms for our client.

We helped an Am Law 100 law firm obtain payment for legal services in connection with a successful infringement lawsuit against a rival company. After obtaining a multi-million dollar writ of attachment, the case was settled following arbitration.

We represented a semiconductor design company in an employee class action alleging violations of Section 17200 surrounding the valuation of employee stock options. After dissecting an extremely complicated merger and spin-off transaction, we demonstrated the weaknesses of the plaintiff's case. We obtained a settlement in mediation for a small fraction of the claimed damages.

We represented Moonton, in a lawsuit filed in the Central District of California by Riot Games, which claimed Moonton’s Mobile Legends: Bang Bang infringed its copyrights in several elements of League of Legends and its promotional materials. The Court granted our motion to dismiss on forum non conveniens grounds, finding that China is a more appropriate forum for the litigation.

We defended certain real estate investors against alter ego claims, in both state and federal court. These alter ego claims were brought in an effort to hold our clients personally liable for a $7.5 million judgment against their company and to pierce the corporate veil protecting our client's real estate investment firm. Following a multi-week bench trial, the court entered judgment for our clients and awarded them attorneys' fees.

We represented a Taiwanese manufacturer of liquid crystal display screens in a massive price-fixing investigation conducted by the U.S. Department of Justice’s Antitrust Division.

We represented a commercial real estate company in a claim for a commission and defended the company against a cross-complaint. The court sustained the demurrers to the cross-complaint without leave to amend and granted summary judgment on the affirmative claims. After the plaintiff rejected an offer for both sides to walk away, the appeals court affirmed both rulings.

We served as lead counsel for a leader in digital media streaming solutions. Our client asserted trade secret misappropriation and related patent claims concerning video place-shifting technologies. The matter was successfully resolved on confidential terms.

We defended Paramedics Plus from American Medical Response’s (AMR) claims of anticompetitive unfair business practices. After losing the competitive bidding process for Alameda County’s emergency medical services transportation contract to its much smaller rival Paramedics Plus, AMR accused our client of violating California's predatory pricing law, Business & Professions Code Section 17043, in its bid to win the 911 ambulance contract. Despite a minimal amount of precedent, we were able to preserve the statute’s intent, which is to safeguard healthy competition by protecting smaller companies from larger rivals. We received a unanimous 12-0 jury verdict in favor of our client.

We won a complete defense verdict for our multinational law firm client, and three individual law firm partners, in a malpractice claim arising out of patent litigation in the ITC and Delaware. The plaintiffs had alleged more than a dozen individual acts of malpractice and sought $60+ million in damages. After a hard-fought two-week arbitration before a retired federal judge in New York, the arbitrator issued an award in our clients’ favor.

We won a rare judgment as a matter of law fending off a $450 million trade secret claim against Veeva Systems in New York federal court. Competitor Medidata Solutions sued Veeva alleging that several of its former employees had access to the company’s trade secrets, retained Medidata’s confidential documents, and used that information to unfairly compete with Medidata when they left to join Veeva. We convinced the court that Medidata’s “trade secrets” were vague business concepts at best, that Veeva never used Medidata trade secrets in developing its software, and that no reasonable jury could find in its favor. The Court granted judgment as a matter of law for Veeva at the end of Medidata’s case-in-chief.