John is joined by Quinn Emanuel partners Dave Nelson and Alex Lasher. They discuss the landmark victory Dave and Alex’s team won for Samsung Display before the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC) in a trade secrets case against Chinese competitor, BOE Technology Group. The ITC is an independent, quasi-judicial agency of the federal government that, among other duties, adjudicates claims regarding unfair trade practices, including intellectual property infringement. Monetary damages are not available in ITC proceedings. However, the ITC can provide powerful injunctive relief by issuing exclusion orders that stop all infringing products from entering the U.S. at the border. These exclusion orders make the ITC a strategic venue for intellectual property disputes involving imported goods. Although trade secret cases at the ITC are not new, they have become more prominent in the last decade. The ITC process differs significantly from federal court litigation. Proceedings are accelerated and are led by an administrative law judge and a third-party staff attorney who acts as a neutral participant. ITC staff may conduct discovery, cross-examine witnesses, and submit their own briefs, making trial preparation especially complex. There are no juries. This case involved accusations that BOE misappropriated dozens of trade secrets related to OLED display technologies used in phones, TVs, and microdisplays. BOE used these stolen trade secrets to manufacture competing products and import them into the U.S. for several years. Discovery in the case was complicated by both the legal obstacles to taking discovery of a Chinese company and language barriers, with Samsung’s internal documents largely in Korean and BOE’s in Chinese. The team faced additional challenges defining the trade secrets at issue with sufficient specificity early in the case—a prerequisite for discovery. Another major hurdle was proving that Samsung maintained a “domestic industry” in the U.S. worthy of protection under ITC rules—a jurisdictional requirement. Despite these difficulties, the administrative law judge issued a 15-year exclusion order covering all BOE OLED display products, effectively barring them from the U.S. market. The team’s trial efforts were bolstered by a pre-trial sanctions order against BOE for discovery misconduct. The case demonstrates how IP litigation at the ITC can create enormous commercial leverage and underscores the critical role expert testimony and meticulous trial preparation play in high-stakes trade secret disputes.

John is joined by Carolynn Levy, Chief Legal Officer of Y Combinator (YC). They discuss YC’s evolution into the world’s most prominent startup accelerator. Some of the famous startups to come out of YC include DoorDash, Airbnb, Stripe, and Coinbase. Carolynn joined YC in 2012. Since then, the organization has grown from a small early-stage investor to a robust platform funding approximately 600 startups annually. In 2012, companies were evaluated in two seasonal “batches,” but YC’s growth now requires having four seasonal batches every year. Each batch now includes approximately 150 startups. Each startup receives $500,000 in seed funding and gains access to a network of alumni, ongoing mentorship, and lifetime support through YC’s internal platform, Bookface. To select the startups, YC evaluates up to 20,000 applications per batch, relying on human review and in-person interviews, where selected applicants receive immediate decisions on whether they will be included in the next batch. The startups included in a batch work on their product for three months. Then, on Demo Day, the founders are given the opportunity to pitch their companies to a room full of investors. That room is now supplemented by online participation for broader reach. In Carolynn’s opinion, strong, resilient, and flexible founders are the most crucial ingredient for a start-up’s success and more important than the idea for the project itself. YC favors entrepreneurs who are focused on product-market fit and is cautious about early-stage founders who are overly preoccupied with legal formalities. Optimism is crucial in the startup world. This has caused Carolynn to shift her mindset from risk-averse legal training to embracing bold innovation. As the Chief Legal Officer of YC, Carolynn leads a team of seven lawyers that handle everything from entity formation and investment paperwork to founder breakups and brand protection. Recently, immigration issues have posed additional challenges due to the global nature of YC’s business. The episode offers a rare inside look at how YC balances legal oversight with startup culture, emphasizing practicality and a deep respect for entrepreneurial vision.

John is joined by Rachel Geman, partner at Lieff Cabraser Heimann & Bernstein, LLP, and Justin A. Nelson, and Rohit Nath, both partners at Susman Godfrey. They discuss the groundbreaking $1.5 billion copyright class action settlement Rachel, Justin, and Rohit reached with AI company Anthropic on behalf of the authors of copyrighted materials —the largest copyright recovery in history. The case involved Anthropic’s use of over 450,000 copyrighted works—mostly books—sourced from pirated sites like Library Genesis and Z-Library. These works were used to train large language models (LLMs). The case centered on infringing conduct stemming from the download and use of pirated copies of copyrighted works. Judge William Alsup, who presided over the case, found that Anthropic’s downloading of pirated works was “irredeemably wrong” and constituted infringement. He also ruled that using legitimately obtained books to train AI was transformative and, therefore, fair use—a finding the plaintiffs disagreed with. A trial was scheduled but avoided when the parties reached a $1.5 billion settlement shortly after fact discovery closed. The settlement compensates authors and publishers at an average rate of approximately $3,000 per work. The settlement also reflects contractual author-publisher splits and employs a structured claims process overseen by a special master. Under the agreement, Anthropic must also destroy the infringing copies and certify they were not used to train its commercial models. This resolution, the largest known copyright recovery to date, was approved after detailed scrutiny of its fairness and administration.

John is joined by Christopher Padilla, Senior Advisor at the Brunswick Group and former Under Secretary of Commerce for International Trade. They discuss the recent lawsuits challenging President Trump’s sweeping use of tariffs under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA). The IEEPA is a 1977 statute traditionally used to freeze assets or impose sanctions in wartime or against adversaries. Until now, IEEPA has never been used to impose tariffs, and does not mention the word “tariff.” Multiple lawsuits challenging the tariffs have been filed in various courts, including several U.S. district courts and the Court of International Trade (CIT). The CIT, a court traditionally deferential to presidential authority over trade, is moving faster than other courts. It has already denied one preliminary injunction and scheduled initial arguments concerning standing and jurisdiction. The administration has moved to consolidate the challenges filed in district courts with those in the CIT. Plaintiffs range from state governments and Native American tribes to small businesses. The cases largely challenge the President’s authority to issue the tariffs on four main grounds: (1) the IEEPA does not authorize tariffs; (2) the President must have clear congressional authorization to increase the tariffs under the Supreme Court’s “major questions” doctrine; (3) the tariffs violate the constitutional separation of powers and nondelegation doctrine; and (4) the declared “emergencies” used to justify the tariffs—such as immigration or the trade deficit—are not genuine emergencies under the IEEPA. Even if the plaintiffs in these cases prevail, the administration could still reimpose tariffs under other delegated statutory authorities, although proceeding under those authorities will involve several procedural hurdles. Ultimately, Christopher believes that real change would require congressional action, which is unlikely in the short term, and that any rollback of tariffs may depend more on economic developments such as recession, stagflation or a collapse of the bond market than on court rulings.

John is joined by Christopher Kercher, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s New York office, and Jeffrey Chivers, co-founder of litigation AI company Syllo AI. They discuss the transformative role artificial intelligence played in a recent Quinn Emanuel trial victory in Delaware Chancery Court. The case involved Desktop Metal’s attempt to force Nano Dimension to complete a $183 million merger, where Nano tried to stall the deal by slow-walking regulatory approvals by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States until the drop-dead date for the transaction had passed. Quinn Emanuel was hired to represent Desktop Metal only six weeks before trial, requiring an accelerated approach to discovery and case preparation. The team used Syllo AI, a litigation focused product that allowed them to review and organize massive volumes of documents through natural language prompts, create timelines, tag relevant material, and identify patterns much faster than traditional methods. The Syllo platform also integrates multiple AI models that cross-check each other’s outputs while following built-in mental models of legal reasoning. During the trial, Syllo customized its tools to provide rapid privilege log and document production deficiency analysis, helping to identify gaps in the opposing side’s discovery. The team also worked with Claude, a large language model developed by Anthropic to test ideas, explore potential legal theories, and brainstorm approaches to witness examinations. Syllo and Claude helped attorneys identify relevant evidence for use in expedited post-trial briefs and suggested potential lines of questioning for depositions. Attorneys directed all AI usage, with Claude serving as a cognitive tool that amplified the legal team’s capabilities while the attorneys maintained full responsibility for all work product. AI did not displace anyone on the trial team. Instead, it complemented the attorneys’ expertise, enhancing their ability to deliver strategic insights and respond effectively to case developments. It may soon become malpractice not to use AI in trial preparation.

John is joined by Ben Lee, Chief Legal Officer of Reddit. They discuss Ben’s extensive career as a senior in-house lawyer in several of the most successful tech companies in the world. After earning degrees in physics and economics, Ben worked at IBM’s research lab, where he was intrigued by the way lawyers grappled with the impacts of technology on society. Ben then went to law school and began his career as a litigator at a New York law firm but left to work at the Legal Aid Society. Financial realities eventually led him back to private practice and then to a career in-house. At AT&T and NEC, Ben worked closely with pioneering computer scientists and handled complex IP matters involving emerging technologies like machine learning and AI. When he moved to Google, Ben advised on major projects like Chrome, Android, and Google Cloud at very early stages when their success was far from assured. Ben later joined Twitter during its early, fast-paced growth phase, managing litigation, IP, employment, and regulatory issues. He led Twitter’s lawsuit against the U.S. government over transparency for national security requests. Later, at Airbnb, Ben tackled challenging regulatory landscapes worldwide, and at Plaid, he advocated for consumers’ rights to financial data. At Reddit, Ben now oversees all legal functions for a vast online platform with over 100,000 user-created and moderated communities. Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is vital to Reddit’s success. It provides that online users and platforms are generally not liable for content created by others. Section 230 protects Reddit’s content moderation decisions, the decisions of its volunteer community moderators and its individual users. Finally, Ben advises young in-house lawyers to remember that their job is not to just point out all potential legal risks in a project, but to help their teams manage those risks so they can build great products and move companies forward.

John is joined by John Nadolenco, Managing Partner of Mayer Brown’s Los Angeles office and Kelly Kramer, partner in Mayer Brown’s Washington, D.C. office. They discuss how John and Kelly won an eleven-year legal battle over the Bahia Emerald, the largest emerald in history. The 789-pound gemstone was illegally mined in Bahia, Brazil and smuggled into the U.S. The emerald first entered the U.S. in San Jose, California where the importers falsely declared it to be a piece of concrete with no value. It later surfaced in New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina, was transported several more times, and was eventually seized in Las Vegas by the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department in 2014 when one party seeking to claim the emerald reported it stolen. This led to an action in Los Angeles Superior Court to determine the rightful owner. When news accounts of the action reached Brazil, the government contacted John and Kelly to intervene. They worked with the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) which filed a federal case in the District of Columbia invoking a little-known provision from the Patriot Act, which allowed the emerald to be frozen pending forfeiture. Meanwhile, Brazilian courts convicted those who illegally mined and exported the gemstone and, after years of appeals, issued a final forfeiture order. The DOJ then moved to enforce the Brazilian ruling, ultimately securing the emerald. The emerald is now set to be repatriated and displayed in a museum in Rio de Janeiro, bringing an end to one of the most extraordinary asset recovery cases in modern history.

John is joined by Shawn Fagan, the Chief Legal Officer of Citadel LLC, and a key legal figure at Citadel Securities. Citadel is the most profitable hedge fund globally while Citadel Securities is a leading market maker, processing nearly one-third of U.S. equities and options trades. They discuss Shawn’s insights into the unique legal challenges of these rapidly growing organizations. Shawn has essentially four clients: Citadel, Citadel Securities, founder Ken Griffin, and Griffin’s family office. His responsibilities extend beyond legal oversight to include regulatory affairs and compliance and reflect the complexities of modern finance. Shawn’s journey to Citadel was unconventional. He started as a litigator at Bartlett Beck, a boutique trial firm, where he spent nearly half his time in trial. He participated in high-profile cases, including Bush v. Gore, but ultimately realized that trial work was not his passion. A chance meeting with Ken Griffin led to an in-house opportunity at Citadel, where he has been for 20 years. In that time, Citadel has grown from 1,000 employees with $12 billion in AUM to 4,900 employees with $65 billion in AUM. The focus of his role at Citadel is building the right teams to meet the demands of rapidly growing markets around the world, developing technology to ensure regulatory compliance across trillions of transactions every day, and maintaining consistent standards in an organization that is growing as rapidly as Citadel. Citadel has engaged in several high-profile legal battles, including lawsuits against the SEC and IRS, reflecting Citadel’s willingness to challenge regulations it views as unreasonable and unduly burdensome. In retaining outside counsel, Shawn looks for lawyers with a strategic vision who can articulate a clear path to winning cases.

John is joined by David Elsberg, the Founding Partner of two law firms, most recently Elsberg, Baker & Maruri. They discuss the experience of starting a law firm, including the motivations, challenges, and rewards of building a law firm from the ground up. David is a former Quinn Emanuel partner. He was inspired to start his own firms by the accounts of John and other Quinn Emanuel partners of the satisfaction they felt from building something new. He wanted the challenge of starting a firm and learning the business side of legal practice. Although running a law firm requires a different skill set from practicing law, starting a law firm is not particularly difficult compared to other businesses. Success depends primarily on assembling the right people. At first, David was intimidated by the non-legal aspects of starting a business, such as setting up payroll and office infrastructure, but found that hiring skilled professionals made the process manageable. The most critical factor for success is selecting lawyers who are not only talented, but work well together. Before starting a new firm, founders should carefully disengage from their current firm. They need to walk a tightrope in how they communicate their departure to their current firm’s management, colleagues, and clients. Boutique litigation firms now attract high quality associates because they offer young lawyers more trial experience and closer client relationships. Many clients also appreciate the hands-on approach of a smaller firm without the bureaucracy of a large organization. David’s firm prioritizes trial work, handling high-stakes disputes, particularly in finance. He has found that, while it involves risk, the rewards of independence and creativity in a start-up firm are significant.

In the second episode in this series recorded before a live audience in China, John is joined by Richard Ma, Founder of the Dahui law firm; Xiao Liu, Quinn Emanuel’s Chair of China Practice and Chief Representative of the Beijing Office; and Yixuan Zhu, partner in Quinn Emanuel’s Beijing office. They discuss building their respective firms, establishing their firms’ cultures, global expansion strategies, and challenges in cross-border legal practice. Dahui was established to better serve clients, particularly in fast-evolving new economy industries like technology, media, telecommunications, and healthcare. Dahui adopted a boutique approach—being the best at what it did and providing full-service legal support to its clients. Expanding carefully, the firm analyzes whether expanding into a new city will assist its clients and whether it can attract top tier local talent. The Chinese legal market is also trending towards firms expanding into “second-tier” Chinese cities such as Wuhan, Nanjing, and Chongqing where an increasing number of disputes arise. Quinn Emanuel’s global expansion has been largely talent-driven and opportunistic, seeking exceptional lawyers to open offices rather than following a predetermined plan. In addition, the globalization of business has led to a globalization of disputes with proceedings in multiple jurisdictions and key witnesses living around the world. Firms with talented lawyers throughout the world are simply better suited to effectively represent clients in such cases. Both firms work to maintain firm cultures that emphasizes competitiveness and client service. Quinn Emanuel has a tradition of sending firm wide “victory emails” to celebrate case wins and instill a results-driven mindset. Dahui values commitment to precision and professionalism, ensuring high standards in legal work. On the evolving Chinese legal market, Dahui bridges the gap between international clients and China’s regulatory landscape, correcting misconceptions and ensuring successful investments and dispute resolutions. As Chinese companies continue to expand globally, demand for international dispute resolution will likely rise. Legal complexities stemming from U.S.-China tensions will also likely provide opportunities for experienced litigators to navigate shifting regulatory and geopolitical landscapes.​

In the first of a series of podcasts recorded before a live audience in China, John is joined by Professor Gao Xiqing, the former Vice Chairman, President and Chief Investment Officer of the China Investment Corporation, the largest Chinese Sovereign Wealth. They discuss Prof. Gao’s extraordinary career from his early days building a railroad in rural China during the Cultural Revolution to earning his JD at Duke and becoming one of the first Chinese lawyers to pass the New York bar and work at a major Wall Street firm. Prof. Gao’s work on Wall Street led to him explaining, as a third year associate, the causes of the Black Friday stock market crash to Chinese business and government leaders. Later he was called back to China to design its first stock exchange and the Chinese regulator equivalent to the SEC. They also discuss Prof. Gao’s role in running the China Investment Corporation (CIC), one of the world’s largest sovereign wealth funds. CIC invests only in private businesses outside of China, purchases less than a 10% stake in those companies, and splits its investments roughly evenly between publicly traded companies and private equity. Finally, they discuss Prof. Gao’s perspective on Sino-American relations. He believes that, viewed in perspective, the two countries have grown much closer since the days of the Cold War and that common cultural values, such as the drive to work hard and achieve, will lead to closer relations in the future

John is joined by Michael Ng, partner at Kobre & Kim. They discuss the $604 million verdict Michael recently won in a trade secrets case in Alameda County Superior Court in California. The punitive damages phase of the trial is expected to take place in the Spring. The case centered on allegations that Phillips 66 misappropriated Propel Fuels’ trade secrets while conducting due diligence for a potential acquisition that ultimately did not proceed. Michael explains that Propel Fuels, a pioneer in renewable fuels, accused Phillips 66 of using proprietary data, including financial models, market research, and operational strategies, to replicate Propel’s business. Despite Phillips 66’s claims that it had no need for Propel’s information, Michael and his team demonstrated that the trade secrets were not only accessed but directly used to launch Phillips 66’s renewable fuels business. The evidence Michael’s team presented included internal Phillips 66 documents and testimony that showed the rapid deployment of Phillips 66’s business mirroring Propel’s proprietary model. Michael reviews the strategic decisions he made that led to the verdict, including choosing to proceed in state court rather than federal court, providing a detailed pretrial trade secrets disclosure, selecting jurors with technical expertise, and proactively calling a key defense witness during Propel’s case-in-chief. He also describes how the trial team effectively explained the complex market and regulatory dynamics of renewable fuels through their clients’ testimony and expert witnesses. John and Michael also discuss Propel’s damages case, which was based on an unjust enrichment theory that emphasized the head start Phillips 66 gained by leveraging Propel’s trade secrets. Michael describes internal Phillips 66 communications stating that Propel’s information gave Phillips 66 a ten year head start on entering the renewable fuels market. Finally, John and Michael also discuss broader trends in trade secrets litigation, including the growing importance of trade secret law in emerging technologies like AI and machine learning, where trade secrets often offer more protection than patents.