Christa Anderson

Christa Anderson regularly serves as lead counsel in complex, high-stakes business litigation for some of the country’s top corporations. Leveraging her background in mathematics, she has extensive experience in the area of intellectual property (patent and copyright), as well as in antitrust, contract, commercial and class action litigation.

Christa has litigated, mediated and tried high-profile cases in federal and state courts around the country. As a trial strategist in these high-profile cases, she has successfully presented cutting edge issues across numerous industries and areas of law. Her clients include some of the largest technology companies in the world. Her matters include successfully defending Google through trial twice in the Oracle v. Google case – a matter in which Oracle claimed multiple billions of dollars in damages for patent and copyright infringement relating to the use of the Java programming language in Google’s Android platform.

Prior to joining Cooley, Christa was a partner at Keker Van Nest & Peters. She is recognized as a leading intellectual property litigator by numerous legal directories and publications including The American Lawyer, Benchmark Litigation, Best Lawyers, Daily Journal, IAM Patent 1000, Law360, Managing Intellectual Property and The Recorder.

Representative matters:

• Represented one of the largest semiconductor companies in the world in an ITC investigation in which a competitor asserted infringement of seven patents that purportedly cover graphics processing units (GPUs). Secured a complete victory.
• On behalf of one of the largest technology companies in the world, successfully sued a patent troll in Marshall, Texas. Secured a favorable jury verdict.
• Defended an EMS system management company against claims of anticompetitive unfair business practices brought by a competitor. Plaintiff accused client of violating California's predatory pricing law, Business & Professions Code Section 17043, in its bid to win an ambulance contract. Won a unanimous 12-0 jury verdict in favor of client.
• Defended a leading cloud-computing company against patent infringement allegations brought by a competitor in the Northern District of California. Successfully narrowed the scope of the case from five patents to two and secured a settlement that was a fraction of the original demand.
• Defended one of the largest technology companies in the world in a patent infringement case involving advertising placement technology. A Virginia federal judge granted motion for summary judgment on all but one of plaintiff’s patent infringement claims. Soon after, plaintiff stipulated to invalidity on the last remaining claim.
• On behalf of a leading semiconductor company, led a joint-defense group of wireless chip manufacturers, PC manufacturers, and cellular network carriers. Settled the case favorably on the eve of trial.
• In a suit raising novel issues of franchise law, represented a national fashion retailer in a breach of contract suit filed by client's former Middle East distributor. Won summary judgment motion and the victory was affirmed on appeal.
• Won a $5.5 million jury verdict against a leading energy company for wrongfully terminating and retaliating against a female petroleum engineer. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the award.
• Represented a leading search engine in class action litigation concerning online advertising. Pursuant to a motion to dismiss, a federal judge dismissed the matter with prejudice.
• Defended a major consumer finance company in a statewide class action alleging some of its financing disclosure statements were inadequate under California’s Rees-Levering Act. Secured a favorable settlement with the class representatives.
• Represented the designer of a very popular line of dolls in a federal trial to determine which toy company owns the doll's copyright. Settled the case on favorable terms before the commencement of trial.
• Represented an online file-sharing company’s investors against allegations of copyright infringement and asserted counterclaims of antitrust violations. After using crime fraud arguments to pierce the plaintiff's attorney-client privilege, the case settled on favorable terms.