Paven Malhotra’s practice focuses on complex commercial and white collar criminal litigation, including intellectual property, legal malpractice, securities, and antitrust. Mr. Malhotra has been an active member of three trial teams, serving as one of the principal associates in one of the largest trade secrets cases ever tried in California. He has also represented various media companies, news outlets, and production companies in litigation and administrative proceedings, as well as maintained an active pro bono practice.
Cases of Note
United States v. Executive: We are defending the former owner of a California-based agribusiness company from antitrust, mail fraud and bribery charges brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sacramento. Prosecutors allege that our client violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the tomato processing industry by raising and fixing prices, and rigging bids for the sale of tomato paste within the U.S. We are now challenging the government’s unlawful seizure of documents, wiretaps and other materials.
Discover v. Visa USA, Inc.: We defended Visa USA, Inc. in one of the largest private civil antitrust matters in U.S. history. Discover sued MasterCard and Visa for alleged antitrust violations, claiming that credit card network rules affected member banks’ ability to issue American Express and Discover cards. The case settled on the eve of trial for billions less than Discover claimed. We also defended Visa in a similar action brought by American Express.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company v. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation: We represented the world’s leading semiconductor foundry, TSMC, against China’s leading semiconductor manufacturer, SMIC, in the largest trade secret misuse case ever tried. SMIC owed its existence to technology stolen from our client, and faced our damages claim of $2 billion, which would have exceeded SMIC's entire market value. The parties produced nearly 18 million pages of documents and conducted 266 days of deposition in the U.S. and in Asia. Following a jury verdict in favor of our client, SMIC agreed to pay $200 million in cash and approximately $130 million of its company stock. Ultimately TSMC's goal was to protect its intellectual property, not shut down its competitor, and so settled for far less than it could have recovered. For foreign companies that market their goods and services in the U.S., this case established that California’s trade secret statute will protect the intellectual property essential to those goods and services, even if the theft occurred in Asia.
Plaintiff v. Sheriff's Department: We represented an individual in his excessive force claim against a Sherriff's department. The case was settled on terms favorable to our client.
State of California v. California First Amendment Coalition: We sought to enforce the media's first amendment rights in response to a broad gag order. The case, which involved cutting-edge constitutional issues, stemmed from the 2009 Bay Area Rapid Transit Police shooting of Oscar Grant.
"Growing Need Exists for South Asian Judges," Daily Journal, 2011
Awards and Honors
Editor, Harvard International Law Journal, Harvard Law School
Research assistant for Professor Louis Kaplow, Harvard Law School
Phi Beta Kappa, Harvard College
Edward J. McFetridge Inn of Court
Member, National South Asian Bar Association, Judicial Endorsements
Bay Area founding member, Committee Indian American Leadership Initiative