Quyen Ta
Partner

qta@kvn.com
Tel. (415) 773-6673

Education

UC Berkeley School of Law , J.D., 2003

UC Los Angeles, B.A., summa cum laude, 1999

Other Experience

Alameda District Attorney's Office, 2011

Asian Law Caucus

National Partnership for Women & Families

Clerkships

Hon. Lawrence K. Karlton
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California, 2004-2006

Bar Admissions

California

Quyen Ta

Quyen Ta is an experienced litigator and trial lawyer. She has tried numerous cases, including five as first-chair, and has handled a significant number of civil and criminal matters in state courts, federal courts, and before the International Trade Commission. Her practice focuses on class action defense, intellectual property, securities, and other high-stakes, complex civil litigation. Ms. Ta was part of a trial team that secured a trial victory and settlement publicly valued at more than $300 million for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC). She recently litigated a class action lawsuit for her client and successfully had a $1 billion claim dismissed at the summary judgment stage. Her representative clients include TSMC, Public Storage, NRG Energy, and JM Eagle. She has represented individual and institutional clients in various industries, including financial services, solar energy, semiconductor, internet, communications, and self-storage.

In 2013, she was selected by the Recorder as a "Lawyer on the Fast Track" based on her career achievements and leadership roles within her practice and the larger community. In 2014, she was selected as a "Women Leader in Tech Law" by the Recorder, and was named one of the nation's "Best Lawyers Under 40" by the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, a 10,000-plus member bar organization. Ms. Ta has been recognized by various other bar organizations for her professional achievements and community service.  In 2013, the federal judges of the Northern District of California selected her to serve a three-year term as a Lawyer Representative of the District.

Ms. Ta is active in bar and community activities, including serving on the board of the Bar Association of San Francisco. She lives in Berkeley with her husband and twin sons.

Cases of Note

Bowe v. Public Storage: We defended the United States’ largest self-storage operator, Public Storage, from a consumer class action lawsuit. The plaintiff alleged our client deceived customers who bought tenant insurance policies. The plaintiff claimed Public Storage sold tenant insurance to him and other storage consumers without properly disclosing that the company retains a “substantial portion” of the premiums. The suit claimed that the insurance program offered by Public Storage was “a hidden profit center for itself that kicks back unconscionable profits at the expense of consumers.” The suit, filed in Miami federal court, sought restitution for all of the insurance premiums paid to Public Storage by its customers over the past four years. Within three months of being retained, and just seven months before trial, we prevailed on a Summary Judgment Motion which dismissed the class’ RICO claim. The matter settled favorably two days before trial.

Downey v. Public Storage: We are defending the United States’ largest self-storage operator, Public Storage, in a class action lawsuit filed in California, brought under Business & Professions Code Section 17200, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The matter is pending in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Martinez-Santiago v. Public Storage: We are defending the United States’ largest self-storage operator, Public Storage, in a lawsuit brought in New Jersey District Court under the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA). The matter is pending.

In the Matter of Certain Standard Cell Libraries Products Containing or Made: We represented Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) against Tela Innovations in the ITC and in the District of Delaware. Both cases concerned patents that relate to integrated circuit design. Tela attempted to prevent TSMC, the world’s leading pure play foundry, from working with its hundreds of US customers, including Apple and Qualcomm, to manufacture chips that are the heart of nearly every smartphone and television sold in the US. In the offensive case, TSMC asserted that Tela Innovations partnered with TSMC in order to learn about the company’s technology, which it used to build its own patents. After successfully briefing and arguing to limit the ITC investigation only to TSMC’s importations into the US, as opposed to TSMC’s customers, we negotiated a resolution between the two companies that resulted in TSMC purchasing a portion of Tela Innovations.

Ziptronix v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company: We won summary judgment of non-infringement for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and its subsidiary TSMC, North America in a long-running patent lawsuit brought by North Carolina semiconductor company, Ziptronix, Inc. Ziptronix had asserted nine patents and more than 500 patent claims directed to TSMC’s manufacturing of semiconductors for use in backside-illumination image sensors used predominantly in smartphone cameras. On behalf of TSMC, we defeated Ziptronix’s claims by arguing that the territorial limits of U.S. patent law prohibited reaching TSMC’s business transactions and manufacturing operations in Taiwan.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company v. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation: We represented TSMC against China's then-leading semiconductor manufacturer, SMIC, in the largest trade secret misuse case tried to date. SMIC owed its very existence to technology stolen from our client. Following a jury verdict on liability in favor of TSMC, SMIC agreed to pay $200 million in cash and approximately $130 million of its company stock. The case serves as precedent for the strong protection afforded by California's trade secret statute, even where the actual theft occurred in Asia.

Eastman Kodak Co. v. HTC Corp.: We defended HTC in a five-patent investigation brought by Kodak before the International Trade Commission. The action accused dozens of mobile devices of infringing digital imaging patents that covered a range of technologies, including image capture, processing, display, compression and transmission. Consistent with ITC practice, our defense took place on a fast schedule, with a hearing date that was set approximately one year from the start of the investigation and fact discovery being completed in approximately six months. Just prior to the scheduled hearing date, the case was resolved when the Kodak patent portfolio was sold.

Purdue Pharma v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.: We defended Impax Laboratories, Inc. against patent claims related to generic oxycodone products. Following the Federal Circuit’s reversal and remand of inequitable conduct findings in an earlier lawsuit brought against another defendant, we brought a revised challenge under the terms of the Federal Circuit’s order. We then secured a settlement that released our client from all past liability, and gave the company a limited license.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Former Chief Financial Officer: We defended the former chief financial officer of a San Francisco-based hedge fund firm against charges of insider trading. The case was part of the government’s push to make insider trading the focus of financial fraud prosecution. The Securities and Exchange Commission named our client and several others in a civil suit, alleging they made more than $8 million trading on stocks based on insider tips. We knocked out half of the case on summary judgment and settled the remainder on very favorable terms.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers: We represented the CEO and CFO of a communications technology company in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation, a lawsuit filed with the SEC, related civil lawsuits filed by investors, and a related bankruptcy action. We resolved all of the lawsuits on favorable terms.

United States v. McKesson Corporation: We won a complete defense judgment in favor of McKesson after a month-long trial of a qui tam action alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statue. The trial victory allowed McKesson to avoid paying nearly $1 billion in fines, and to avoid the collateral penalties that government agencies can impose on companies found to have paid illegal kickbacks. The Justice Department’s complaint charged McKesson with paying kickbacks to a nursing home operator in the form of underpriced services, and with submitting “legally false claims” to the government. After we had the whistleblower dismissed, a key victory, we then won dismissal of related claims that the nursing home’s supplier subsidiary failed to comply with Medicare supplier standards. With the case’s scope significantly narrowed, we lead our client through a bench trial which featured 24 witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and post-trial briefing. The judge ruled in our client’s favor, vindicating McKesson and its employees. This victory was listed by the National Law Journal as one of the year's five most significant trial wins.

Plaintiff v. Law Firm: We successfully defended at trial an Am Law 50 law firm and one of its former partners against a $100 million claim. The plaintiff alleged malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty related to estate planning. After an eight-week trial in California state court, we won a complete victory.

Plaintiffs v. Individuals: Plaintiffs filed breach of contract and many other state claims including fraud and unjust enrichment against our clients. We successfully filed a demurrer on more than half of the claims, eventually leading to a successful settlement.

Plaintiff v. Westamerica Bank: We successfully tried this breach of contract lawsuit, filed in Solano County Superior Court. We won a favorable verdict for the plaintiff on the liability phase.

Awards and Honors

  • Vietnamese American Bar Association of Northern California, Trailblazer Award, 2015
  • Rising Star, Northern California Super Lawyers, 2012 - 2016
  • Best Lawyers Under 40, National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA), 2014 
  • Women Leaders in Tech Law, The Recorder, 2014
  • Joe Morozumi Award for Exceptional Legal Advocacy, Asian American Bar Association of the Greater Bay Area, 2014
  • Diversity Award, BASF Barristers Club, 2013
  • Lawyer on the Fast Track, The Recorder, 2013
  • Dale Minami Public Interest Fellowship Alumni of the Year Award, 2013
  • Bar Association of San Francisco Award of Merit, 2012
  • Minority Bar Coalition Unity Award, 2010
  • Georgetown Women's Law and Public Policy Fellow, 2003-2004
  • Community Service Award, Vietnamese American Bar Association of Northern California, 2003
  • Prosser Award in Cities, Stratification and Separation, 2003
  • Prosser Award in Minority Vote Dilution, 2002
  • UC Berkeley School of Law Moot Court Brief Writing Award, 2001
  • Phi Beta Kappa

Professional Affiliations

  • Lawyer Representative of the Northern District of California to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference: 2013-2016 (Co-Chair, 2016)
  • Bar Association of San Francisco: Board Member and Minority Bar Coalition Representative, 2011-2012; Equality Committee Co-Chair, 2012-2015; Board Member 2013-2016
  • California State Bar Committee on Federal Courts: 2012-2015
  • Asian Pacific American Bar Association of Silicon Valley, Judiciary Committee, Co-Chair, 2013- Present
  • National Asian Pacific American Bar Association (NAPABA): Northern California Regional Governor, 2012-2014
  • Asian Law Caucus: Board Member and 40th Anniversary Co-Chair, 2008-2012; Leadership Council Co-Chair, 2012-present
  • Vietnamese American Bar Association of Northern California: President, 2010; Board Member, 2006-present
  • Barristers Club: Diversity Director, 2010; Board Member, 2010-2011

Presentations

  • "The Use of Experts," PLI Pretrial Practice Conference, 2016
  • "Impacting Diversity from Outside the Firm, BASF's Unmasking Diversity, 2012
  • "Making Partner at Big Law Firms for Diverse Attorneys," Barristers Annual Meeting, 2012

Bowe v. Public Storage: We defended the United States’ largest self-storage operator, Public Storage, from a consumer class action lawsuit. The plaintiff alleged our client deceived customers who bought tenant insurance policies. The plaintiff claimed Public Storage sold tenant insurance to him and other storage consumers without properly disclosing that the company retains a “substantial portion” of the premiums. The suit claimed that the insurance program offered by Public Storage was “a hidden profit center for itself that kicks back unconscionable profits at the expense of consumers.” The suit, filed in Miami federal court, sought restitution for all of the insurance premiums paid to Public Storage by its customers over the past four years. Within three months of being retained, and just seven months before trial, we prevailed on a Summary Judgment Motion which dismissed the class’ RICO claim. The matter settled favorably two days before trial.

Downey v. Public Storage: We are defending the United States’ largest self-storage operator, Public Storage, in a class action lawsuit filed in California, brought under Business & Professions Code Section 17200, and the Consumer Legal Remedies Act. The matter is pending in Los Angeles Superior Court.

Martinez-Santiago v. Public Storage: We are defending the United States’ largest self-storage operator, Public Storage, in a lawsuit brought in New Jersey District Court under the Truth-in-Consumer Contract, Warranty and Notice Act (TCCWNA). The matter is pending.

In the Matter of Certain Standard Cell Libraries Products Containing or Made: We represented Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) against Tela Innovations in the ITC and in the District of Delaware. Both cases concerned patents that relate to integrated circuit design. Tela attempted to prevent TSMC, the world’s leading pure play foundry, from working with its hundreds of US customers, including Apple and Qualcomm, to manufacture chips that are the heart of nearly every smartphone and television sold in the US. In the offensive case, TSMC asserted that Tela Innovations partnered with TSMC in order to learn about the company’s technology, which it used to build its own patents. After successfully briefing and arguing to limit the ITC investigation only to TSMC’s importations into the US, as opposed to TSMC’s customers, we negotiated a resolution between the two companies that resulted in TSMC purchasing a portion of Tela Innovations.

Ziptronix v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company: We won summary judgment of non-infringement for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and its subsidiary TSMC, North America in a long-running patent lawsuit brought by North Carolina semiconductor company, Ziptronix, Inc. Ziptronix had asserted nine patents and more than 500 patent claims directed to TSMC’s manufacturing of semiconductors for use in backside-illumination image sensors used predominantly in smartphone cameras. On behalf of TSMC, we defeated Ziptronix’s claims by arguing that the territorial limits of U.S. patent law prohibited reaching TSMC’s business transactions and manufacturing operations in Taiwan.

Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company v. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation: We represented TSMC against China's then-leading semiconductor manufacturer, SMIC, in the largest trade secret misuse case tried to date. SMIC owed its very existence to technology stolen from our client. Following a jury verdict on liability in favor of TSMC, SMIC agreed to pay $200 million in cash and approximately $130 million of its company stock. The case serves as precedent for the strong protection afforded by California's trade secret statute, even where the actual theft occurred in Asia.

Purdue Pharma v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.: We defended Impax Laboratories, Inc. against patent claims related to generic oxycodone products. Following the Federal Circuit’s reversal and remand of inequitable conduct findings in an earlier lawsuit brought against another defendant, we brought a revised challenge under the terms of the Federal Circuit’s order. We then secured a settlement that released our client from all past liability, and gave the company a limited license.

Eastman Kodak Co. v. HTC Corp.: We defended HTC in a five-patent investigation brought by Kodak before the International Trade Commission. The action accused dozens of mobile devices of infringing digital imaging patents that covered a range of technologies, including image capture, processing, display, compression and transmission. Consistent with ITC practice, our defense took place on a fast schedule, with a hearing date that was set approximately one year from the start of the investigation and fact discovery being completed in approximately six months. Just prior to the scheduled hearing date, the case was resolved when the Kodak patent portfolio was sold.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Former Chief Financial Officer: We defended the former chief financial officer of a San Francisco-based hedge fund firm against charges of insider trading. The case was part of the government’s push to make insider trading the focus of financial fraud prosecution. The Securities and Exchange Commission named our client and several others in a civil suit, alleging they made more than $8 million trading on stocks based on insider tips. We knocked out half of the case on summary judgment and settled the remainder on very favorable terms.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Chief Executive and Chief Financial Officers: We represented the CEO and CFO of a communications technology company in a Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) investigation, a lawsuit filed with the SEC, related civil lawsuits filed by investors, and a related bankruptcy action. We resolved all of the lawsuits on favorable terms.

United States v. McKesson Corporation: We won a complete defense judgment in favor of McKesson after a month-long trial of a qui tam action alleging violations of the False Claims Act and Anti-Kickback Statue. The trial victory allowed McKesson to avoid paying nearly $1 billion in fines, and to avoid the collateral penalties that government agencies can impose on companies found to have paid illegal kickbacks. The Justice Department’s complaint charged McKesson with paying kickbacks to a nursing home operator in the form of underpriced services, and with submitting “legally false claims” to the government. After we had the whistleblower dismissed, a key victory, we then won dismissal of related claims that the nursing home’s supplier subsidiary failed to comply with Medicare supplier standards. With the case’s scope significantly narrowed, we lead our client through a bench trial which featured 24 witnesses, hundreds of exhibits and post-trial briefing. The judge ruled in our client’s favor, vindicating McKesson and its employees. This victory was listed by the National Law Journal as one of the year's five most significant trial wins.

Plaintiff v. Law Firm: We successfully defended at trial an Am Law 50 law firm and one of its former partners against a $100 million claim. The plaintiff alleged malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty related to estate planning. After an eight-week trial in California state court, we won a complete victory.

Plaintiffs v. Individuals: Plaintiffs filed breach of contract and many other state claims including fraud and unjust enrichment against our clients. We successfully filed a demurrer on more than half of the claims, eventually leading to a successful settlement.

Plaintiff v. Westamerica Bank: We successfully tried this breach of contract lawsuit, filed in Solano County Superior Court. We won a favorable verdict for the plaintiff on the liability phase.

Developed by Tenrec