Morrison Foerster is an international law firm with lawyers practicing throughout the United States, Asia, and Europe. Click to discover more.

mofo_share_image.jpg

Morrison Foerster

common-default.jpeg

Terms / Notices

Cookies

Privacy Policy

Reporting Hotline

Attorney Advertising

Alumni

  Linkedin

MoFo LinkedIN

  Facebook

MoFo Facebook

YouTube

MoFo Youtube

Morrison Foerster - Footer

Morrison Foerster Secures $2 Billion for California Students

You have not solved the recaptcha challenge yet or session expired, try again.

Email Disclaimer

Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our <a href="https://www.mofo.com/about/privacy-policy.html">Privacy Policy</a>, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.

Feedback

mofo-logo-2022.svg

People

Capabilities

Resources

About

Community

Offices

Careers

Stay Connected

Morrison Foerster secured at least $2 billion in funding to help students who fell behind during the COVID-19 pandemic—one of the largest education-related settlements in U.S. history.

<h3>Sorry, we weren’t able to find the terms you entered.</h3>Please try a different term or keyword.

People

Capabilities

Resources

Not Found Cards

About Morrison Foerster

people-default-header-desktop.jpg

people-default-header-mobile.jpg

Default Meta Data

Morrison Foerster secured at least $2 billion in funding to help students who fell behind during the COVID-19 pandemic—one of the largest education-related settlements in U.S. history.Under the settlement agreement in <a href="https://publiccounsel.org/our-cases/cayla-j-v-california/" target="_blank">Cayla J. v. the State of California</a>, local education agencies will direct at least $2 billion in existing Learning Emergency Block Grant Funds to evidenced-based programs that are proven to increase student outcomes. The programs must serve the lowest performing students in the school district, identified using a data-driven “needs assessment” process that incorporates academic performance in math and English language arts, as well as absenteeism numbers. The programs that serve them must be evidence-based, meaning they result in a statistically significant increase in performance. And school districts must measure the success of these programs for the populations they serve. In a first for California, the proposed law will enable funds to be spent on community organizations with a proven track record of improving student success. Each local education agency will determine the plan and evidenced-based programs for reaching the students it serves as part of the annual Local Control and Accountability Plan. They will also be required to report on the success of the programs using measurable outcomes. Additionally, members of the public will be able to file a complaint relating to these plans under the uniform complaint procedure, recognizing that every California resident has a stake in the education of the next generation.“MoFo is proud to have worked with Public Counsel, Oakland REACH, and Community Coalition to achieve this historic settlement for the students of California whose education was most severely affected by the COViD-19 pandemic,” said Michael Jacobs, Morrison Foerster partner and lead of the pro bono team for Cayla J. v. State of California. “This case is yet another example of the firm’s commitment to quality education for all in our State.” The MoFo pro bono team, led by Jacobs, was comprised of Lily Li, Purvi Patel, John Lanham, Erik Olson, Chris Han, Matthaeus Martino-Weinhardt, Chelsea Kehrer, Max Levy, and Ian Bennett. The team served as co-counsel with Public Counsel, a nonprofit public interest law firm dedicated to advancing civil rights and racial and economic justice. Read Public Counsel’s <a href="https://publiccounsel.org/press-releases/historic-settlement-promises-new-resources-for-children-left-behind-during-pandemic/" target="_blank">press release</a>.

Morrison Foerster Secures $2 Billion for California Students

Sign Up

Lily Li is a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property practice and Head of Litigation in the Palo Alto office. She represents technology companies in high-stakes patent, trade secret, copyright, trademark, and licensing disputes, as well as complex commercial matters. With an engineering background, published research in artificial intelligence, and prior in-house semiconductor leadership experience, Lily brings technical fluency and seasoned judgment to complex disputes and has led and tried bet-the-company cases. Her practice spans state and federal courts, the International Trade Commission, arbitration tribunals, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and cross-border proceedings. She has experience in technologies including semiconductors, artificial intelligence, software and hardware systems, autonomous driving, aviation, wireless communications, medical devices, and pharmaceuticals.Before entering private practice, Lily served in an in-house leadership role at a semiconductor company, leading patent prosecution, licensing strategy, and global intellectual property portfolio development.She maintains an active pro bono practice focused on human rights and educational equity. She helped lead the team in Cayla J. v. State of California, which secured a historic $2 billion settlement addressing pandemic-related learning loss.Lily earned her bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering and conducted graduate research in artificial intelligence, publishing in IEEE Transactions on Neural Networks. She is admitted to practice in California, before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Lily Li

Partner

Purvi G. Patel is the former managing partner of the Los Angeles office.Purvi represents retail, e-commerce, and other consumer-oriented businesses in significant advertising, unfair competition, consumer fraud, and privacy matters. She has built a robust practice advising household names on various compliance issues and defending them in complex and class action litigation in federal and state courts across the country, winning motions to dismiss, defeating class certification, and securing summary disposition in several multi-million dollar lawsuits. Purvi is a strategic and practical thinker who is in tune with her clients’ priorities, which leads to successful outcomes both inside and outside the courthouse.Practice Leader. Purvi has a defined niche that cuts across the firm’s Consumer Litigation, Class Actions, and Data, Cyber + Privacy Groups. With a focus on businesses’ collection of personally identifiable information (PII), Purvi is a recognized leader in defending lawsuits involving the collection, use, and disclosure of PII. In addition, due to her vast experience handling class action litigation for clients across sectors, Purvi has notched significant victories for industry-leading companies, including securing summary judgment and defeating class certification in some of the most plaintiff-friendly jurisdictions nationwide.Purvi’s extensive litigation experience uniquely positions her to counsel clients on compliance with established and emerging laws and regulations, including the potential privacy implications of business practices relating to the collection of PII. Purvi is an expert in numerous California privacy laws, including the California Consumer Privacy Act, the California Invasion of Privacy Act, and California’s Song-Beverly Credit Card Act (and analog statutes in effect in other states).Purvi is also committed to the firm’s pro bono initiatives and has worked on a number of pro bono matters during her tenure at the firm. Most recently, she represented an interfaith coalition of more than 50 religious organizations as amici in various cases challenging the 2017 “travel ban” Executive Orders. In 2014, Purvi successfully argued a Ninth Circuit appeal on behalf of a U.S. citizen who was wrongfully subjected to two years of pre-trial detention as a result of a detainer imposed by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Mendia v. Garcia, 768 F.3d 1009 (9th Cir. 2014)).Firm Leader. Purvi is committed to advancing diversity at Morrison & Foerster. For more than five years, she served as the Co-Chair of the firm’s Diversity Strategy Committee. During her tenure, Purvi contributed significantly to the Committee’s success, including implementing a LGBTQ+ Gender Inclusive Policy, and launching MoFo’s innovative Allies Network. She was the firm’s Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) Fellow in 2014 and remains active in the organization as an alumna. In addition, Purvi served as hiring partner for the Los Angeles office between 2015 and 2023.Community Leader. Purvi is also actively engaged in the community. In 2019, she was a founding board member of Legal Education Access Pipeline (LEAP), a fellows program dedicated to increasing access to legal education for underrepresented populations.  She has also been working with “Just the Beginning – A Pipeline Organization” (JTB) since 2015 when she joined an inaugural steering committee of judges, in-house and outside counsel, and educators to launch a Los Angeles-based Summer Legal Institute. She is a past co-president of the South Asian Bar Association of Southern California (SABA-SC), and in 2023, was honored with its Trailblazer award. She was selected for her “trailblazing efforts which have paved the way for a more inclusive and representative profession” and “her commitment to breaking barriers in the legal profession.” In 2019, Purvi was named SABA-SC’s Mentor of the Year.Representative Matters<ul><li>Privacy Class Action Litigation. Defending software development company in two putative class actions brought under state common law based on alleged violations of the federal Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act. Obtained dismissal of putative privacy class action against Southern California grocery store chain, which was affirmed on appeal. </li><li>Class Action Litigation Relating to Consumer PII. Represented national retailers in more than 30 California Song-Beverly Credit Card Act and Massachusetts’ Song-Beverly analog matters arising out of the alleged collection of PII, securing favorable settlements or walkaways for many following early negotiations with plaintiffs’ counsel. Trial attorney for national retailers in two Song-Beverly class actions. For Target Corporation, led pre-MDL team coordinating and managing responses to single-plaintiff and putative class action complaints filed in wake of data breach.</li></ul><ul><li>False Advertising and Consumer Class Action Litigation. Defeated class certification for household-name companies in numerous matters involving consumer protection claims arising out of alleged misrepresentations and omissions as well as lawsuits brought under unfair competition, false advertising, and product liability laws. Also obtained dismissals at the pleadings stage in cases alleging unfair, unlawful, and fraudulent marketing and advertising practices.</li></ul>

Purvi Patel

John Lanham is a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property Group who represents companies in high-stakes business and technology disputes, including patent, trade secret, copyright, and complex commercial litigation matters. He brings broad-based business litigation experience to his clients’ most significant disputes and advises on litigation strategy, risk mitigation, and strategic decision-making as issues develop and before disputes arise.John works closely with his clients to translate complex legal issues into practical business decisions.  He represents clients across a range of industries, including artificial intelligence, software, semiconductors, aviation, life sciences, and manufacturing. His clients range from emerging companies to global enterprises.He also maintains an active pro bono practice focused on children’s rights and constitutional issues. John is a past president and board member of the San Diego Intellectual Property Law Association.John received his J.D. cum laude from Northwestern University School of Law. While at Northwestern, John served as a judicial extern for the Honorable Joan Humphrey Lefkow of the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois and as a member of the Northwestern University Law Review. John received his B.A. magna cum laude with distinction from the Colorado College. At Colorado College, John was inducted into Phi Beta Kappa.

John R. Lanham

Erik Olson’s practice focuses on the litigation of securities, corporate governance, and intellectual property disputes, with particular emphasis on clients in the biotechnology, medical device, telecommunications, and high-technology industries.Erik regularly represents executives, directors, and companies in suits arising from actual or potential mergers, acquisitions, and other strategic transactions. Between 2008 and 2016, Erik has directed teams that defeated preliminary injunction motions, obtained dismissals, or favorably resolved more than twenty cases involving challenges by shareholders to public merger transactions. He is one of the primary authors of the Association of Corporate Counsel’s “White Paper” on managing class action merger litigation. In fall 2016, Erik served as SoftBank Group Corporations’ lead counsel in a trial in the Delaware Court of Chancery that addressed claims by stockholders of Clearwire Corporation that Sprint breached its fiduciary duties in connection with a 2013 acquisition of Clearwire. The trial also concerned stockholders’ claims to an appraisal in connection with the same merger.In 2012 and 2013, Erik served as SoftBank’s primary litigation counsel in connection with state and federal claims that sought to enjoin SoftBank’s acquisition of a controlling interest in Sprint Nextel Corporation and that sought to enjoin the related merger between Sprint Nextel Corporation and Clearwire Corporation. In the Sprint litigation, the lead plaintiffs ultimately withdrew their requests for a preliminary injunction prior to the consummation of the merger and later voluntarily dismissed their claims. Erik served as one of Cogent Inc.’s lead counsel in litigation that sought to enjoin Cogent’s merger with the 3M Company. The Delaware Court of Chancery denied plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction.In other securities-related matters, Erik has repeatedly obtained dismissals of federal class action lawsuits under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act and successfully defended those dismissals before the Fourth, Ninth and Tenth Circuits.In 2010 and 2011, Erik obtained a dismissal with prejudice of derivative and class action claims filed against Crocs, Inc., the directors and officers of Crocs, Inc., and Global Cash Access, Inc. In each case, Erik’s clients were successful following a first motion to dismiss. He has also successfully persuaded the SEC to conclude, without penalties, investigations into alleged federal securities law violations for dozens of companies and individuals across a broad range of industries.Erik regularly works on behalf of audit committees and special committees of boards of directors conducting confidential investigations of whistleblower allegations, alleged violations of federal law, and alleged accounting misconduct, such as the allegedly improper recognition of revenue, write-offs concerning inventory and other assets, or the alleged violations of companies’ internal controls.In intellectual property-related matters, Erik regularly assists high-technology, telecommunications and life sciences companies in the prosecution or defense of intellectual property lawsuits with competitors regarding consumer electronics, smartphones, telecommunications equipment, biotechnology products, drugs, or medical devices. Erik served as patentee’s counsel in connection with three high profile patent disputes between major smartphone manufacturers, including in a trial in which the jury awarded the patentee over $1 billion. In 2016, Erik helped Sandoz secure a victory in its patent and intellectual property dispute with Amgen, leading to the introduction of the first “biosimilar” pharmaceutical product under the Affordable Care Act’s Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). The case addressed groundbreaking issues regarding the BPCIA’s procedures related to when and how brand name biotechnology companies can assert patents in an effort to stop the introduction of new competition. Erik previously served as a chief architect of the University of California’s patent infringement victory over The Monsanto Company regarding claims to recombinant bovine growth hormone. The resulting settlement, valued at more than $200 million, ranked at the time as one of the top ten settlements in any biotechnology patent case in the United States. Erik advises both patent holders and defendants in connection with intellectual property claims across the country.Erik has served as counsel in numerous state and federal courts, in private arbitrations, and in proceedings before the SEC. He has handled appeals in the California Court of Appeals and the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals for the Third, Fourth, Ninth, Tenth, Eleventh, D.C., and Federal Circuits.From 2007-2008, Erik served as chair of the Litigation Section of the State Bar of California. From 2005-2007, he also served as chair of the Litigation Section’s Rules & Legislation Committee, which reviewed and comments on legislative and rule changes that affect civil litigation in California. Erik currently serves as a member of Morrison & Foerster’s board of directors and serves as Treasurer for the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, the largest pro bono service provider in Santa Clara County (San Jose, California).Erik graduated from Stanford Law School. While at Stanford, he was elected to the Order of the Coif and was the recipient of the Morie Award for outstanding legal writing.<h4>Representative Experience</h4><ul dir="ltr"><li>Smartphone Litigation Co-led a team that successfully tried a series of high-profile smartphone cases, including a jury verdict of over $1 billion.</li><li>Amgen Inc., et al. v. Sandoz Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for N.D. Cal., Federal Circuit). Secured a victory on behalf of Sandoz Inc. in the first case to interpret the Affordable Care Act’s Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). The federal district court ruled in Sandoz’s favor on all issues before the court, adopting Sandoz’s interpretation of the BPCIA in all respects. The court also denied Amgen’s motions urging a contrary interpretation and seeking a preliminary injunction. The Federal Circuit later affirmed the key elements of Sandoz victory. Erik current represents Sandoz in disputes regarding patents directed toward the purification of proteins expressed using recombinant DNA technology.</li><li>In re Sprint Merger Litigation (Kansas District Court; U.S. District Court for the District of Kansas). Represented SoftBank Corporation in litigation that sought to prevent its acquisition of a controlling interest in Sprint Nextel Corporation. Plaintiffs ultimately withdrew their request for a preliminary injunction after oral argument and then voluntarily dismissed their claims after the transaction closed. (2012-2013).</li><li>In re Clearwire Merger and Appraisal Litigation (ACP v. Sprint Corp.) (Delaware Court of Chancery). Representing SoftBank Corporation in breach of fiduciary duty and appraisal litigation associated with Sprint’s cash merger with Clearwire Corporation. Served as lead counsel at a trial of the fiduciary duty and appraisal claims in the fall of 2016. The case is currently one of the largest appraisal actions ongoing in the Court of Chancery.</li><li>In re Crocs, Inc. Securities Litigation; Wheeler v. Snyder, et al. (D. Colo.). Represented Crocs, Inc. and certain of its current and former officers and directors in shareholder derivative lawsuits filed in Colorado. In February 2009, won dismissal of all derivative claims, with prejudice, on first motion to dismiss. No appeal was filed.</li><li>In re Crocs Inc. Securities Litigation (D. Colo.). Represented Crocs, Inc. and its current and former officers and directors in shareholder class actions (claiming violations of the Exchange Act). Won dismissal of all claims with prejudice pursuant to the Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 on a first motion to dismiss.</li><li>In re Cogent Merger Litigation (Del. Court of Chancery & Los Angeles County Superior Court). Represented Cogent Inc. and its directors in a lawsuit challenging its merger with the 3M Company. Successfully defeated a motion seeking a preliminary injunction to enjoin the transaction based on alleged breach of fiduciary duties.</li><li>In re Ameristar Merger Litigation (Nevada State Court). On behalf of Pinnacle Entertainment, the buyer of Ameristar Casinos, defeated motions seeking a preliminary injunction against the closing of the merger and obtained a dismissal of plaintiffs claim.</li><li>In re Global Cash Access Securities Litigation (D. Nev.). Represented Global Cash Access and its executives in securities litigation brought against a payment processor who specialized in the gaming industry. Successfully dismissed certain initial claims and then obtained a favorable settlement, which was fully covered by insurance.</li><li>Hattan v. RH, Inc. (Marin County Superior Court). Reached a favorable settlement on behalf of RH in connection with shareholder litigation stemming from a going-private transaction.</li><li>Ned v. Titan Pharm. Inc., et al. (N.D. Cal.). On behalf of Titan Pharmaceuticals, obtained voluntary dismissal of pending class action securities claims against Titan without need to file a motion to dismiss.</li><li>In re Telik Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.). On behalf of Telik Inc., successfully settled a class action litigation challenging the disclosure of Phase III clinical trial results based on payments by insurers without the need for costly or burdensome discovery.</li><li>Baht v. Global Defense Technology & Systems, Inc. (Del. Court of Chancery). Representing Global Defense Technology & Systems Inc. and its directors in litigation challenging its proposed merger with a private equity buyer.</li><li>Elan v. Abraxis (U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware). Represented Abraxis in its high profile patent dispute and trial with Elan regarding technology used in the delivery of chemotherapy agents.</li><li>SEC Investigations. Successfully persuaded the SEC to conclude, without penalties, investigations into alleged federal securities law violations at a software company, a home goods retailer, and a medical device manufacturer. (2005-2011)</li><li dir="ltr">Stock-Options Investigations. Represented multiple U.S. public companies with far-reaching internal investigations regarding the company’s employee stock-option program. (2006-2007)</li></ul><h4>Leadership Roles</h4><ul dir="ltr"><li dir="ltr">Current member of Morrison Foerster’s board of directors</li><li>Treasurer and chair of the Finance Committee for the Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, the largest pro bono service provider in Santa Clara County (San Jose, California)</li><li>Serves on the committee that evaluates civil rule changes in the Northern District of California</li><li>Chair of the Litigation Section of the State Bar of California (2007 – 2008)</li><li>Chair of the Litigation Section’s Rules & Legislation Committee (2005 – 2007)</li></ul>

Erik J. Olson

Ian Bennett is an Intellectual Property Litigation associate based in Morrison Foerster’s San Francisco office and a graduate of Morrison Foerster’s Two-Summer Patent Program for Patent Litigation.Ian received his J.D. from Columbia Law School, where he was a Butler Fellow and a James Kent Scholar and served as a managing editor for the Columbia Law Review. During his time at Columbia, Ian worked as a research assistant to Professor Jane Ginsburg, providing research on books and articles on copyright law. Ian also externed for Judge Joseph F. Bianco on the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.Ian won first place in the New York Bar Association’s Professor William R. Ginsberg Memorial Essay Contest for his article “Mitigating the Next Disaster: Strengthening the U.S. Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board.” His article was published in the Environmental Claims Journal and republished in the New York Environmental Lawyer.Ian earned a B.E. in Chemical Engineering from McGill University. At McGill, he performed research involving controlled radical polymerization and co-authored two papers based on the work.

Ian Bennett

Associate

Historic settlement promises new resources for children left behind during the COVID-19 pandemic