Law, disrupted

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Michael Schachter, Partner and Co-Chair of the White-Collar Defense Practice Group at Willkie Farr & Gallagher LLP.  Michael has an unparalleled record of victories in some of the most high-profile criminal trials in the United States. Describing Michael in 2022, Chambers USA stated, "The things he can do in a courtroom are magical.”  Together John and Michael discuss the high-profile defense verdict Michael obtained in the Eastern District of New York on behalf of client Tom Barrack, founder of the global investment firm Colony Capital.John opens the conversation by asking Michael about the background of the charges against Mr. Barrack. Michael explains that Mr. Barrack had served as the chair of the Inauguration Committee for former President Trump. In the course of the numerous investigations of the former president’s affairs, the Inauguration Committee was examined thoroughly with no findings of wrongdoing. However, this brought Mr. Barrack under the government’s scrutiny.The charges ultimately brought against Mr. Barrack alleged that he acted as an agent of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) without notifying the Department of Justice in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 951, obstructed justice, and made false statements to federal agents when they interviewed him. Michael explains that the allegations about acting as an agent of the UAE arose from meetings Mr. Barrack had with the UAE’s National Security Advisor and the Crown Prince. Michael explains that Section 951 prosecutions are generally reserved for espionage cases, whereas lobbying cases, such as this one, are usually prosecuted under the Foreign Agent Registration Act (FARA). Prosecutions under FARA require the government to prove that the defendant knew of the registration requirement for foreign lobbyists. Michael speculates that the government proceeded under Section 951 to avoid having to prove this element.The conversation then turns to the evidence presented at trial. Michael explains that the government built its case primarily on text messages and emails taken out of context, particularly a text message in which Mr. Barrack discussed a proposal that he become a special envoy to the Middle East. In that text, Mr. Barrack suggested that if he had such a role, it would benefit the UAE. Michael explains that at trial, he has able to show that Mr. Barrack affirmatively declined the special envoy role. Michael also called former Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin to testify about a conversation in which Mr. Barrack spoke against the actions of the UAE in a dispute it was having with Qatar. John then moves the conversation to Michael’s use of cross-examination during the prosecution’s case to establish his own themes with the jury. Michael describes how the defense team used the cross-examination of an expert called to testify that the UAE was not a good ally to the U.S. to prove that it really was. Michael also recounts how the defense used the cross-examination of former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who previously headed Exxon, to show that it made good business sense for the head of a global large global business, such as Colony Capital, to meet with members of royal families in the Middle East who are often key business decision-makers. Finally, Michael and John discuss the possible impacts this case might have on government policy. Michael suggests that the case might convince the government to return to a more restrained approach to prosecutions under Section 951, confining them to espionage cases as in the past. He also suggests that the cross-examination Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Mark Lanier, Founder of the Lanier Law Firm. Mark is consistently recognized as one of America's premier civil trial lawyers. Together John and Mark discuss the $650.6m award Mark recently won on behalf of two Ohio counties in a bellwether trial against CVS, Walgreens & Walmart for their role in the opioid crisis.John and Mark begin by discussing the basis of the claims against these pharmacies. Mark explains that because opioids are controlled substances, pharmacies must ensure that a prescription is valid and proper before filling the prescription. Further, pharmacies must notice and resolve any red flags that arise in connection with a prescription before filling it. Mark provides several examples of potential red flags, including (a) several seemingly healthy people presenting prescriptions for the same dose of the same medicine written by the same doctor, (b) a prescription from a doctor located so far away that the customer had to drive by many other pharmacies that could have filled the prescription, or (c) the customer paying for other prescriptions with insurance, but paying cash for the opioids.John then turns the discussion to how Mark proved at trial that these pharmacies violated their duties on a systemic basis. They discuss the statistical evidence that Mark presented, including the methodology Mark used to sample an appropriate number of prescriptions to see how many raised red flags and how many times the pharmacies resolved those issues before filling the prescriptions. John and Mark also discuss policies that stores adopted preventing pharmacists from investigating red flags, including requirements that prescriptions be filled in 15 minutes or less.  They then discuss the defenses Walmart, Walgreens & CVS presented, that they each sold only a small percentage of the opioids sold in the two counties, so their actions could have had only a minimal effect on the opioid crisis. The conversation then moves to the damages phase of the trial, including injunctive relief. Mark explains why he focused his presentation on injunctive relief, particularly the costs of the actions the counties would have to take to control the opioid crisis over the next 15 years, rather than estimating the damages incurred to date. They discuss the remediation plan Mark first presented, the defendants’ attempts to poke holes in it, and the scaled-down plan Mark ultimately presented to the court.John and Mark then discuss what the $650.6m judgment for two small counties in one state would mean when extrapolated to the country as a whole. They also discuss the current state of opioid litigation in general, including the three buckets of plaintiffs (governmental entities affected by the crisis, opt-outs and hospitals and other healthcare institutions) as well as the three buckets of defendants (manufacturers and importers of opiates, opiate distributors, and pharmacies) and where each group currently stands in terms of litigation and settlement.John then turns the discussion to the arguments the pharmacies will raise on appeal. Mark explains the pharmacies’ arguments that the case is an unwarranted extension of the law of nuisance, their arguments against the joint and several liabilities, as well as their claim that the jury was tainted by one juror’s alleged misconduct. Finally, John and Mark discuss some of Mark’s other remarkable trial wins, including the $118m he won in a case that he had earlier offered to resolve for $10,000. This leads to a discussion of how experienced and thoughtful trial lawyers avoPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by John Hueston and Moez Kaba, Co-Founders and Partners at Hueston Hennigan LLP. Chambers has described John Hueston as “one of the top trial attorneys” in the United States and Moez as “a master in the courtroom.” Together they discuss an arbitration in which they obtained both a $175 million plus 5% ongoing royalty (an estimated $50 million annually) award in arbitration – one of the largest U.S. trademark awards ever – and a federal jury trial verdict for more than $271 million (a potential record for a Lanham Act case) for clients Monster Energy and Orange Bang against Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (VPX), the maker of Bang energy drinks. The conversation begins with John Hueston explaining the background of the dispute. He discusses how for 40 years, Orange Bang had a widely known trademark for the term “Orange Bang” as a beverage. He then explains that VPX licensed the use of the term “Orange Bang” but only in connection with creatine-based beverages in the nutrition market. The discussion turns to the rise of VPX to become the third largest competitor in the energy drink market, thanks to their product, Bang Energy. The discussion then turns to the issues in play in the arbitration, including how John and Moez had to prove both the licensing agreement's validity and that the trademark had been infringed. They explain their strategy of making the three-week arbitration about the science creatine and how they used VPX’s own documents and witnesses’ depositions to work in their favor.  Moez and John discuss how they proved trademark infringement using survey evidence, historical admissions, and strong equitable stories, including how VPX signed the licensing agreement knowing confusion would ensue. They explain why they decided to take a conservative approach to  monetary damages rather than asking for more than $1 billion, which expert analysis could have supported. This approach resulted in an award of $175 million plus 5% royalties going forward.John then moves the discussion to the Lanham Act jury trial. Moez begins by noting the nine-month time difference between the arbitration and the federal trial and that Monster had filed its lawsuit in California in 2018 before the arbitration proceedings began. In the lawsuit, Monster alleged that VPX advertised its product as a game-changing beverage, which was "nothing short of a miracle drink that delivers benefits and cures that have evaded scientists for decades." Monster also alleged that VPX had misappropriated Monster’s trade secrets by hiring Monster employees and telling them to bring Monster’s confidential information over with them.John Hueston and Moez then explain their unique approach to mock jury exercises in which they overweight the other side’s arguments to help develop their approach both before starting discovery and to prepare for the trial. They also discuss the strict time limits the Court placed on the trial and how they were able to present their case involving complex health, science, and legal issues. Moez explains how they developed their themes that VPX was lying to consumers about what they put in their beverages, cheating competitors by taking confidential information and stealing shelf space away from Monster Energy in supermarkets. They discuss how instead of calling VPX’s CEO to the stand first, they targeted high-level executives who could confirm VPX’s false statements.Finally, the discussion turns to the two critical points of the trial that gave John & Moez the confidence to believe the jury would rule for them: the jury’s reaction to John Hueston’s Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Nasser Alrubayyi. Nasser is a partner at Quinn Emanuel.  He represents and defends international and domestic corporations in a wide assortment of litigation and arbitration cases. Together they discuss the modernization of law, the legal profession, legal process, and judiciary in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and how that relates to promoting foreign investment, including in the mining industry, tech, and life sciences.John and Nasser discuss how Saudi Arabia is currently the fastest-growing economy in the G20, which has led to significant investments in the sectors of the future such as biotech, and education logistics, in addition to oil and gas investment. They note that this growth depends upon a robust legal system that investors have started to have confidence in.  Nasser explains that the legal system is not based upon either common law nor civil law; rather, it is a hybrid, drawing on traits of both. Saudi Arabia has a written constitution, drawing on Sharia sources denoted from Islam, as well as different laws issued by government bodies relating to particular issues. Nasser then explains Sharia law, more specifically, its two primary sources, the holy Qu’ran and Sunnah, referring to the sayings and actions of the prophet Muhammad PBUH. In addition, there are other sources, such as the consensus of the companions of Sharia scholars. He describes the laws pertaining to procedural matters, such as Saudi companies' law and legislation that discusses substantial issues like personal status laws. Together John and Nasser discuss the procedure behind a significant new law being enacted, walking through the process step-by-step from start to finish, including the role of the Council of Ministers. John then steers the conversation toward understanding the recent developments that have taken place in the Kingdom to attract greater foreign investment. Nasser describes how Saudi Vision 2030 is a key driving force in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia’s push to make it a more friendly destination for foreign investment.  He notes that since the approval of Vision 2030, many laws have been amended, and new laws have been enacted to make the Saudi Arabian market more attractive to foreign investors. John and Nasser discuss the enactment of the new mining and investment law as an example of one such law. The law aims to accelerate foreign investment in the mining sector by adopting international best practices, including reducing administrative discretion, bureaucracy, and obstacles to obtaining required licenses. The law also establishes clear timelines for the Saudi entities to respond to requests from investors, as well as an online system that enables investors to track their license applications and know where in the process they are. Nasser notes that while great strides have been made, more work is needed to promote the Kingdom. John and Nasser discuss the Future Investment Initiative (FII) conference in Saudi Arabia, an excellent example of how the Kingdom seeks to play a crucial role in the global economy.The discussion then turns to understanding the Saudi judiciary and the importance of a fair, just, and practical system. Nasser explains the Saudi court system and how proceedings have been made more effective through the use of digital communications.  He notes that the majority of cases are now heard and accessed remotely, online. John and Nasser also discuss the path to becoming a judge in Saudi’s judiciary system and recent investments to provide judges additional training as well as more assistants to help them preparePodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by Michael D. Hausfeld. Michael is widely regarded as one of the leading plaintiffs antitrust lawyers in the world. This episode examines how he achieved a $2.67 billion settlement, as well as market-changing injunctive relief for Blue Cross Blue Shield (BCBS) subscribers. The conversation begins with John and Michael discussing the background of the case, noting that BCBS is the single largest national provider of healthcare insurance with over a hundred million subscribers. Together, they discuss how Hausfeld LLP first came to be involved in the case more than 14 years ago, with Michael describing how a number of firms, including firms that compete with Hausfeld LLP, came to him with suspicions of anti-competitive behavior, asking if he could see whether or not there was an antitrust violation. They then discuss how BCBS structured its “Blue Network” so that each individual Blue Cross entity was considered an independent entity, yet none could compete for healthcare insurance in any state outside their designated territory. They explain how these ostensibly separate entities had essentially allocated markets between themselves and agreed not to compete with each other in violation of antitrust laws.John and Michael cover the extensive discovery taken in the case, including the numerous depositions taken and the millions of documents produced. Michael describes the privilege disputes over hundreds of thousands of documents and the mostly favorable rulings the plaintiffs obtained before a Special Master who examined every document in dispute. John and Michael then discuss the battle of experts in the case and how, unlike a traditional cartel case where the experts need only determine a “but, for” price, this case required the experts to actually model the marketplace and identify which areas within a state a competitive entity would have entered first, how that might grow, etc. The experts then modeled or extrapolated those results for all 49 other states. Michael explains the judge’s novel process for resolving expert disputes in which he had two economists educate him off the record on the factors that each side’s economists focused on in making their determinations.John and Michael then explore how the judge’s ruling on a motion to determine the applicable principle of law, later affirmed on appeal, set the stage for settlement negotiations to be productive. Michael explains how the scope of injunctive relief rather than arriving at the $2.67 billion settlement amount was the most difficult issue to negotiate. They examine how the injunctive relief obtained requires BCBS to restructure its Blue Network so that national BCBS accounts can obtain multiple bids at their choice. They also discuss how, because the national account market is the benchmark for the remaining portions of the market, that will affect competition for all insurance markets: national, regional and local.They then discuss the new cases Michael is now working on, including one involving whether or not a branded manufacturer of HIV drugs unlawfully extended the life of its patents so that it could control pricing, another involving whether or not the major rail carriers agreed not to compete on imposing a fuel surcharge, and a mass tort climate change case on behalf of a number of global south countries against major carbon emitters.Finally, John and Michael discuss Michael’s view that big tech, including Amazon, Microsoft, Google, and Meta will be a focus of a great deal of antitrust attention for some time into the future.Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of ‘Law, disrupted,’ John is joined by Eric Winston, a Quinn Emanuel partner in the Los Angeles office. Eric is one the firm’s insolvency and restructuring partners. He is based in Los Angeles and appears in case around the country.Together, they discuss the Aearo bankruptcy case in Indianapolis, Indiana – a case where Aearo’s (solvent) parent, 3M Company, tried (but failed) to use Aearo’s bankruptcy to enjoin the largest MDL litigation in the federal court – the Combat Arms Earplugs MDL in Pensacola, Florida. This may be the first time in the recent history of “mass tort” bankruptcy cases that tort victims were able to defeat an injunction to protect non-debtor parent companies. The conversation begins with events leading up to the bankruptcy and the MDL, comprising over 250,000 product liability claims relating to defective earplugs sold to the US military. The discussion highlights the work of Quinn Emanuel associate Matt Hosen who found, buried in a large document production in a prior (and successful) antitrust case against 3M, an internal 3M document that became known as “The Flange Report.” John explains that the report by a scientist at 3M revealed that the earplugs that 3M had been selling to the U.S. military for over 15 years were defective. The report led to the filing of a False Claims Act suit against 3M and became important evidence in the resulting lawsuits filed by a quarter million active and former US service members.John and Eric then discuss Quinn Emanuel’s role in the ensuing mass tort litigation against 3M and Aearo, consolidated in an MDL proceeding in Pensacola, Florida. They recount the jury verdicts in “bellwether trials” and the sudden bankruptcy of just Aearo, in Indianapolis, as well as Aearo’s immediate efforts to extend the “automatic stay” protections of a bankruptcy filing to 3M, even though 3M itself was not in bankruptcy.John asks Eric what 3M was trying to accomplish by the bankruptcy filing. Eric explains that 3M’s goal was to use controversial bankruptcy tools, including the automatic stay, claim estimation or channeling injunctions into a bankruptcy plan, and forcing plaintiffs to file proofs of claim. These tools have been used in other major mass tort cases, such as in the LTL/Johnson & Johnson litigation, where a subsidiary holding the mass tort liabilities files for bankruptcy, but the solvent parent does not. In these cases, the debtors have been overwhelmingly successful in protecting the non-debtor parents. John and Eric discuss why this matters. As Eric explains, 3M wanted to channel the resolution of all the tort claims into bankruptcy and, in turn, force plaintiffs to take less than they would usually get in civil court litigation, resulting in 3M keeping more money. Eric and his colleagues were able to defeat this strategy.Together, John and Eric then cover the Aearo bankruptcy case, including the bankruptcy discovery, trial, and important cross-examinations, including the importance of a key funding agreement between 3M and Aearo. The discussion then turns to what happened in the MDL before and after the bankruptcy court denied the injunction Aearo sought for 3M’s benefit. This included the motions Quinn Emanuel filed in the MDL to stop 3M from arguing that it was not 100% directly and independently liable for all earplug litigation.Finally, John and Eric discuss Eric’s experience working more broadly with the plaintiff lawyers in their bankruptcy arena and their different approaches to litigation, as well as the impact the Aearo case may have in future “mass tort” bankruptcies, bePodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of ‘Law, disrupted,’ John is joined by Vinit Nijhawan, Managing Director at MassVentures – a venture capital firm focused on fueling the Massachusetts innovation economy. Vinit also runs the Mass Transfer Center, which helps universities and institutions of higher learning commercialize their unused intellectual property rights.John and Vinit begin by discussing a study that Vinit co-authored that examined how effective or ineffective universities were at commercializing their patent portfolios. One key conclusion of the study was that approximately 60% of the patents held by universities are never licensed. This can send a message to faculty members that the university will not back up their efforts to develop and obtain patents by enforcing them. John and Vinit then examine the best practices at universities that successfully commercialize their patent portfolios. They discuss the entrepreneurial systems at MIT and Stanford, where individual faculty members who develop inventions create a market for their patent either through licensing to an existing company or by creating a startup that venture capitalists invest in. They also discuss universities with activist technology transfer offices that often have funding to help advance projects towards commercialization. These technology transfer offices actively connect faculty members with entrepreneurs and venture capitalists to let them know what technologies the universities have available.The conversation moves on to the steps universities must take to understand which of the 60% of unlicensed patents they should seek to commercialize. Vinit explains that focusing on potential infringement cases helps to identify areas where there is an established market for a given patented technology. John and Vinit discuss in depth how MassVentures helps universities identify areas of their unlicensed patents they should seek to commercialize. Vinit explains that they have used over 200 analysts, primarily engineers, to review patents according to a set scoring system. They go into the elements of this scoring system and how it measures the strength of a patent’s claims, the size of the market opportunity, and how good the story on infringement appears to be. They note that the size of the market opportunity often changes over time and requires periodic re-examination to identify cases where an invention was far ahead of the market when it was first patented. Over time, though, the market may catch up, and a patent that was too early once may become timely and valuable over time.John and Vinit then explore what MassVentures does once it has identified an unlicensed patent that appears to be infringed. Vinit explains that this often involves bringing on board a litigation funder and/or a law firm willing to work on a contingency basis to help make the case for pursuing the infringer. They also discuss the importance of investing in reverse engineering the infringing product before approaching the infringer to be certain that the university has a solid case.  John and Vinit explore the reluctance some universities have to initiate patent litigation. They discuss the fear some universities have of adverse publicity and particularly the fear that such publicity would impact public funding. They also examine the impact that having prominent alumni associated with an infringing company or its research grants from that company can have on the decision-making process.John and Vinit then discuss licensing negotiations between the university and the infringer prior to initiating a lawsuit. They compare the relatively low rPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of ‘Law, disrupted,’ John is joined by Luke Nikas, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office. Luke is widely recognized as one of the top lawyers in the US and has been selected as a Law360 MVP, is Band 1 rated in Chambers, and has been named among Lawdragon’s 500 Leading Lawyers in America. He is also co-chair of the firm’s Art Litigation and Disputes Practice and probably has the world’s most prominent and successful art litigation practice. Together, they discuss the intersection between art, the law, and art disputes more generally.The conversation begins with John asking Luke whether there is such a thing as “art law” – Luke notes that there is such a thing—there are specific, narrow statutes that touch on art but for the most part, art law is a composite of several other areas of law that might apply to any dispute. Most art law cases concern legal principles, such as contracts, intellectual property, fiduciary duty and the like, which happen to arise in the context of a dispute involving art. Together, they discuss the Knoedler Art Gallery case that was litigated from about 2011-2018 – a lawsuit that involved what Luke describes as “one of the most prominent art galleries in the world” before it closed. Luke represented the President of the gallery, and a film was made about the episode. They emphasize the legal and factual issues that surround authenticity disputes.They move on to discuss copyright and fair use matters, including the importance of a copyright case involving Andy Warhol’s work, presently pending before the United States Supreme Court. These types of cases raise important issues about what material we’re trying to protect and why, and how we can develop judicially manageable standards to resolve fair use disputes when the decision-makers are not visual art experts. For example, when evaluating two artworks in a copyright infringement case, what weight do we place on the meaning, message, and visual appearances of the works at issue?John and Luke also examine the relationship between collectors, dealers, gallerists and art advisors. These relationships can create obligations and expectations between parties that translate into fiduciary and other legal duties that the gallery or advisor wasn’t anticipating.  Luke discusses how to protect against these situations so that everyone involved has a clear understanding of the scope of the relationship. Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of ‘Law, disrupted,’ John is joined by Evyatar Ben Artzi, co-founder & CEO of Darrow – an Israel-based company that uses artificial intelligence to scan the internet and identify potential claims. Darrow does this by identifying instances where companies have broken the law or failed to comply with their own rules or policies.The conversation begins with Evyatar discussing his background prior to starting Darrow, including his years as a combat officer in the Israeli Defense Forces, his legal education including his study of Law and Cognitive Science and his tenure as a Supreme Court clerk. Evyatar explains that while at the Supreme Court, he witnessed some of the challenges plaintiffs’ firms faced, inspiring him to start working on a data-driven way to find winning cases and bring them to law firms.John and Evyatar then dive into how Darrow operates. Evyatar explains how Darrow’s “justice intelligence” helps lawyers find better cases, reducing due-diligence costs of finding those cases, and bringing them to court effectively. The process starts by studying successful cases from the past and developing a formula or algorithm to identify similar patterns from current real-world data. Darrow then searches public information, including news feeds, social media, administrative filings, environmental monitoring, HTML source codes, and legal data, including court dockets and legislation, to find other instances of the same patterns that have previously led to successful cases. The system then determines how many people were harmed and forecasts what the likely legal outcome would be to help set the value of the case. Instead of a lawyer looking to find a single “smoking gun,” the artificial intelligence system combines many data points across the internet to put together a complete claim that resembles a previous successful case. Then, Darrow finds a lawyer to examine whether the potential claim is actionable.John and Evyatar discuss how this system is applied to various types of claims. They discuss how it works in data privacy cases where data from the source code of a company's website or app can be compared to the company’s legal documents, terms of service or privacy policies. They then explore recent cases where tech companies have faced trouble for sharing data with third parties, contrary to representations they have made to users. In particular, John and Evyatar discuss a recent case in which a Special Master was appointed to interview Facebook engineers to determine exactly what data Facebook has from its users. It has become commonplace that companies simply do not know what data they collect from users, where it is stored, and what uses are made of it. They then turn to the incentives companies have to comply with data privacy requirements including California’s statute imposing set penalties per user and recent high dollar class settlements.The conversation then moves to how Darrow’s artificial intelligence can help identify environmental claims. John and Evyatar examine how complaints on social media can be matched with hard data from environmental sensors, as well as public information about factories in the area, including previous environmental claims, to develop a viable mass tort case.They also discuss how online pricing data can be evaluated together with public data about product launches and sales to identify patterns that suggest cartel activity or other antitrust claims. They emphasize the need to carefully evaluate such situations to determine if there is evidence of a conspiracy or other illegal activity associated with the patterns in the data.John Podcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi

In this episode of Law, disrupted, John is joined by David Bilsker, partner at Quinn Emanuel & co-chair of the biotechnology practice, and Margaret Shyr, associate at Quinn Emanuel. David and Margaret represent a Chinese-based DNA sequencing company, BGI (Beijing Genomics Institute), which recently made headlines in China for winning the largest ever U.S. jury award for a Chinese-based company. In this episode, John discusses how BGI ultimately prevailed against the U.S.-based leader in the DNA sequencing field, Illumina—not only in achieving this record-breaking jury verdict but also invalidating Illumina patents that were the cornerstone of its decades-long dominance in the sequencing market.The episode begins with John exploring how Illumina gained its market reputation and power in DNA sequencing, which plays a huge role in fighting and understanding diseases like COVID-19. In the early 2000s, Illumina bought a British company, Solexa, whose patents and technology allowed the former to maintain its market leadership in DNA sequencing ever since. Next, David introduces the background of BGI, which started in China to contribute to the Human Genome Project, and BGI’s eventual acquisition of a Silicon Valley-based sequencing company, Complete Genomics. John asks how Chinese DNA sequencing companies cross paths with U.S. patent litigators. David gives an overview of how Illumina initiated a worldwide campaign against BGI to prevent it from introducing its DNA sequencers to the market –Illumina even won a preliminary injunction in California. With BGI being legally foreclosed from the U.S. market, they recognized that they needed the Quinn Emanuel team, led by David, to take over.John discusses with David and Margaret the challenges of litigating against Illumina in California, where Illumina was asserting patents that had survived numerous challenges by other would-be competitors, ending these earlier market entry attempts. David and Margaret describe the invalidity strategy and evidence unearthed during discovery that led to the invalidation of Illumina’s flagship patent at trial. John also notes the team’s successful mitigation of Illumina’s predictable attempts to appeal to anti-Chinese sentiments to members of the jury. Despite having no non-infringement defenses, BGI was found to owe $8 million to Illumina on the remaining four patents—a mere fraction of Illumina’s ask.   Then John moves on to the Delaware case, tried only a few months later, in which David and Margaret turned the tables on Illumina and achieved the $333m verdict for Complete Genomics and BGI. They discuss the challenges of asserting CGI’s patents and defending against Illumina’s patents covering complex DNA sequencing technologies in a ten-day time-restricted trial. Margaret notes that Illumina’s main strategy against CGI’s patents was based on telling a “prior invention” story through an Illumina senior executive. David explains how the Quinn Emanuel team developed key infringement and validity evidence during fact discovery and its presentation at trial. John and David discuss David’s cross-examinations of Illumina’s lead expert, senior executive, and the mid-trial “surprise” from this executive that derailed Illumina’s case. They also explain the strategy to limit the precious trial time spent on Illumina’s asserted patents, but to inflict maximum surgical harm through cross-validation to invalidate all of Illumina’s patents. John also highlights the damages presented by another Quinn partner, David Perlson, who established to the jury that BGI should be awarded its full $333.8m claim. David describes the headline-making coPodcast Link: Law-disrupted.fmHost: John B. Quinn Producer: Alexis HydeMusic and Editing by: Alexander Rossi