Kalpana Srinivasan

It’s common to look at Srinivasan’s stat sheet and see eight — or nine-figure judgments for her clients.

But some of her cases have certified classes just as vast and numerous.

In 2018, a federal judge in San Jose issued an order affirming a class of 250 million plaintiffs in an antitrust case against Qualcomm Inc. The case alleges Qualcomm has a so-called "no license, no chips" practice, by which the company withholds its chipsets from customers unless they agree to pay high royalties on its patents. In Re: Qualcomm Antitrust Litigation, 17-MD-02773-LHK (N.D. Cal., Filed April 6, 2017).

As co-lead counsel in the case, Srinivasan had to devise an effective strategy.

“We had to make a very detailed showing … both how the law applied and how the class claims would be handled and damages would be determined,” Srinivasan said.

“It’s really important to have a mechanism to address the rights of consumers in our technological economy when they’ve been impacted by the conduct of a party,” she added.

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

Taking on large cases requires a willingness to be challenged by formidable opponents, Srinivasan said.

“It is definitely motivating to get up in the morning and do your job when you know it can have an impact on the way the law is shaping a particular area or the lives of customers or people who hold copyrights,” she said.

Earlier this year, a judge confirmed a $740 million award for her client, HouseCanary, after Amrock, which initially agreed to partner with HouseCanary, ran off with its real estate appraisal and valuation technology. Title Source Inc. v. HouseCanary Inc., 2016-CI-06300 (73rd District Court, Texas).

“Those agreements especially prohibited Amrock from developing its own competing software or valuation technology using HouseCanary’s data and trade secret information,” Srinivasan said.

She also won a $100 million case against music streaming service Spotify on behalf of a class of musicians. The lawsuit alleged that Spotify made music available online without securing mechanical rights from the tracks’ composers. Ferrick v. Spotify USA Inc., 1:16-cv-08412 (S.D. New York, filed Oct. 28, 2016).

But Srinivasan said the victory wasn’t just for the one-time payment for her clients.

“One important part of the settlement is that it also seeks to set up a better system going forward …,” she said. “And make sure copyright holders continue to get paid on a going forward basis. That was important to us … to work on coming up with a better system to prevent that from happening in the future.”

— Arin Mikailian