Clara J. Shin

Covington & Burling LLP

San Francisco

Commercial and intellectual property litigation

Shin is co-chair of Covington & Burling's commercial litigation practice group. Over the last three years she appeared as lead counsel and obtained complete wins for Eli Lilly & Co., Dropbox Inc. and McKesson Corp. in IP cases valued at nearly $2.5 billion.

Five months before trial was set in a trademark case, Dropbox substituted Shin in as counsel to defend against claims it had misappropriated the "SmartSync" name to describe a service. The plaintiff wanted $100 million in damages. Shin won summary judgment for her client. Ironhawk Technologies Inc. v. Dropbox Inc., 2:18-cv-01481 (C.D. Cal., filed Feb. 22, 2018).

Shin led a Covington team that defended Eli Lilly against a $1.8 billion claim by French biotech company Adocia S.A. over alleged misappropriation of trade secrets related to the companies' prior collaboration on the development of a fast-acting insulin treatment. A panel of three arbitrators ruled that Lilly acted appropriately regarding Adocia's intellectual property and was not liable for damages. Adocia S.A. v. Eli Lilly & Co., 01-17-0005-2264 (AAA, filed Oct. 10, 2017).

"It boils down to facts," Shin said. "We scoured the records that showed Lilly's scientists developed the process. We focused on our R&D and creativity and stood up for our scientists. I put our scientists on and cross-examined Adocia's scientists, and I showed their supposed inventors did no such thing. Through their own words we proved that their co-founders did not do what they claimed. We were committed to vindicating Lilly's scientists."

Also, Shin delivered an appellate victory for the health care arm of McKesson Corp. in a turnaround case in which Covington was retained five months before trial--following six years of litigation--to defend against trade secret claims valued at $500 million. At issue were purported trade secrets regarding multi-payer coordination of benefits prescription drug loyalty cards.

After prevailing at trial, she successfully defended the verdict before a New York State appellate panel. In the appeal, plaintiff PSKW LLC argued that McKesson had "hoodwinked" the trial court.

"New York judges aren't that easy to hoodwink," Shin said. "Again, the case came down to the facts and to telling stories that follow the timeline. The plaintiff claimed to be the father of the industry, but we showed he was at best a long lost cousin twice removed."

At the oral argument session, Shin said, "The presiding justice asked me if there weren't enough appellate lawyers in New York. I told him yes, there wonderful appellate lawyers here, but I know the case best."

Three weeks after argument, the panel affirmed Shin's trial court win. PSKW LLC v. McKesson Specialty Arizona Inc., 159 A.D.3d 599 (N.Y. S.Ct. App. Div., filed Aug. 26, 2007).

--John Roemer