Kalpana Srinivasan

Srinivasan helped score a $706 million victory for her client, HouseCanary Inc., after a Texas state jury delivered a verdict against Title Source Inc., now known as Amrock, in a trade secrets trial over real estate valuation technology.

Judge David Canales of Bexar County affirmed the judgment, including fees and interest to bring the total to $740 million, and rejected Amrock's motion for a new trial in January.

The high-stakes case actually began when HouseCanary was sued for breach of contract. Title Source Inc. v. HouseCanary Inc., 2016-CI-06300 (73rd District Court, Texas).

The companies had entered into an agreement in which HouseCanary would provide certain software and valuation results to Title Source. The contract included strict provisions prohibiting Title Source from accessing certain data, reverse engineering the software or replicating the valuation model.

"Title Source decided to launch this litigation, even though they never paid HouseCanary any money for the contract," Srinivasan said. "And, in the course of that litigation, it became clear that Title Source had done exactly what they said they were not going to do, which was to develop a competing product using data and information they got from HouseCanary."

At the conclusion of a seven-week-trial, a 12-person jury found in favor of HouseCanary.

In another case, Srinivasan obtained certification in October for a class of up to 250 million consumers against Qualcomm Inc. for abusing its monopoly on modem chip technology.

The attorney is serving as co-lead counsel in the case, which the defense has called one of the largest class actions ever.

Straddling the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property, the case centers on Qualcomm's so-called "no license, no chips" practice, by which the company withholds its chipsets from customers unless they agree to pay "exorbitant royalties on its patents," Srinivasan said.

The case, in which damages top $5 billion in overcharges to the class, is coordinated with an action brought by the Federal Trade Commission. The certification order is currently being appealed to the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.

The attorney, who covered communications policy in Washington D.C. as a journalist prior to law school, said she finds it immensely rewarding to work on cases that involve complex legal issues related to cutting-edge technology.

"I think if you find that your work is allowing you to learn about new areas and to develop a deeper understanding of some areas that you already worked in, I see that as a huge plus," she said. "When there are compelling factual stories that require really diving into the law, I love those kinds of cases."

-- Mark Armao