This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

May 25, 2017

Clara J. Shin

See more on Clara J. Shin

Covington & Burling LLP San Francisco

Clara J. Shin

Health care retail distributor McKesson Corp. hired Shin and a team of Covington lawyers to try a trade secrets case that had been litigated for eight years. The Covington lawyers arrived on the case five months before trial with the challenge of reorienting the defense.

The plaintiff accused McKesson of using its invention to develop a LoyaltyScript co-pay discount program, and sought the assignment of McKesson's patents and nearly half a billion dollars in damages and interest. PSKW LLC v. McKesson Specialty Arizona Inc., 602921/2007 (N.Y. Sup. Ct., filed Aug. 29, 2007).

"We based our strategy on undermining the credibility of the claimed inventor," Shin said. "We used documents we found to tell an affirmative story that McKesson developed" its own co-pay method.

The case was tried in New York over three sessions in 2015 and 2016. The court dismissed all claims in February 2017, finding McKesson independently developed LoyaltyScript and that the plaintiff's invention was neither novel nor proprietary.

"The self-proclaimed father of the co-pay industry was at best a distant cousin twice removed," Shin said.

For Scottish Equity Partners, Shin first-chaired a Covington trial team that won a $34.5 million judgment. The case revolved around San Francisco-based Riverbed Technology Inc.'s purchase of British software Zeus Technology Ltd. and Riverbed's contractual promise to make an earn-out payment to the Zeus investors if the company hit certain post-acquisition revenue targets. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that Riverbed did not owe the earn-out. Shin and her team's cross-complaint for breach of contract led to her proof at trial that a large source code software license met the earn-out requirement. Riverbed Technology Inc. v. Scottish Equity Partners, CGC-12-525496 (S.F. Super. Ct., filed Oct. 27, 2012).

"The key was showing that we were the side that was owed money," she said.

— John Roemer

#301575

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