May 25, 2017
Christa M. Anderson
See more on Christa M. AndersonKeker Van Nest & Peters LLP San Francisco
Simplifying complex technology for judges and juries is an approach that requires practice. Anderson often runs analogies by colleagues before debuting them in court.
"You want folks who will listen and give you a sense of whether you are targeting the message well," she said. The trouble with working on complex intellectual property litigation cases is one may not always know when too much time has been spent on the details.
"Then the weeds don't look so weedy anymore," she said. "And you have to really keep gauging, 'Where am I?' You want to speak with just the right level of specificity that addresses the issues in the case but not get so far into the weeds that you lose folks who have much less time to get up to speed."
Anderson spent a great deal of time in the weeds while representing Alphabet Inc.-owned Google. Oracle claimed it was the victim of a multibillion-dollar patent and copyright infringement involving the use of the Java programming language for Google's Android platform. Oracle is now appealing last year's federal jury ruling, finding unanimously that Google's use of Java was fair use and rejecting Oracle's infringement claims entirely. Oracle America Inc. v. Google Inc., 10-CV3561 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2016).
One of Anderson's favorite aspects of intellectual property practice is that the cases often end up in litigation. Stretching her wings in the courtroom is still a pastime for the Harvard Law School alum.
"They're typically pretty intensely fought," she said. "And as a trial lawyer, those are cases you really hone your skills for."
- Shane Nelson
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
Jeremy_Ellis@dailyjournal.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 213-229-5424
Send a letter to the editor:
Email: letters@dailyjournal.com