Insights
Search Results
Press Releases
2.20.26
Wilson Sonsini Prevails in Blockbuster U.S. Supreme Court Case: V.O.S. Selections, Inc. v. Trump
In a case closely watched by corporate America and indeed the entire world, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed a Federal Circuit ruling in favor of five small business clients, confirming that the International Economic Emergency Powers Act (IEEPA) does not authorize the President of the United States to impose the “Liberation Day” trade deficit tariffs announced in April 2025 and since revised on multiple occasions.
Alerts
6.11.25
Labcorp v. Davis Challenge Regarding Uninjured Class Members Dismissed as Improvidently Granted
In a closely watched case with major implications for class action litigation, the U.S. Supreme Court sidestepped a long-simmering legal question: Can a class be certified if it includes members who suffered no injury? On June 5, 2025, by a vote of 8-1, the Court dismissed Labcorp v. Davis as improvidently granted, leaving unresolved a longstanding circuit split on the issue. But while the dismissal frustrates those hoping for clarity, both the oral argument and Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s pointed dissent reveal a Court still keenly interested in the issue—and likely waiting for a cleaner vehicle to address it.
Alerts
7.08.24
"Chevron is overruled": How Loper Bright Will Change the Regulatory Law Landscape
In a decision with far-ranging implications for federal administrative law, the United States Supreme Court issued its long-awaited ruling in Loper Bright Enterprises v. Raimondo (Loper Bright).1 The Supreme Court’s six-Justice majority held that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) requires courts interpreting agency regulations to determine independently whether the agencies have acted within their statutory authority, even where the statute at issue is ambiguous. In so holding, the Court overruled its 1984 decision in Chevron USA v. Natural Resources Defense Council, which for the last four decades had governed thousands of cases involving federal agency interpretations of ambiguous laws.
Client Highlights
7.08.24
Wilson Sonsini Advises Computer & Communications Industry Association in Landmark Case Impacting Internet Free Speech Rights
On July 1, 2024, the U.S. Supreme Court decided Moody v. NetChoice, LLC and NetChoice, LLC v. Paxton, marking a significant development in the realm of internet regulation and reinforcing the application of longstanding First Amendment principles to the online world. The cases centered around state laws enacted in 2021 by Florida and Texas, both of which target large social media platforms and internet companies. The laws aim to limit platforms' control over content moderation, including filtering and labeling user-generated content, and mandated detailed explanations for content removal or alteration.
Client Highlights
3.10.23
Firm Wins Appeal of Dismissal of Securities Class Action Filed Against Domo, Inc.
On March 9, 2023, the Utah Court of Appeals affirmed an April 2021 ruling by the Fourth Judicial District Court of the State of Utah, which dismissed a securities class action filed against Domo, its CEO, its CFO, certain members of its board of directors, and underwriters involved in its IPO. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati represented the Domo defendants.
Client Highlights
3.03.23
Wilson Sonsini Secures Fourth Circuit Securities Litigation Victory for MacroGenics and Its Executives
On March 2, 2023, the Fourth Circuit affirmed dismissal of a securities class action filed against Wilson Sonsini clients MacroGenics, Inc. and its CEO and CFO. The complaint concerned statements made by the defendants regarding the results of MacroGenics’ Phase III clinical trial of a therapeutic used to treat patients with late-stage metastatic breast cancer. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants made misleading statements by disclosing that the clinical trial met one of its primary endpoints (“progression free survival”), but not simultaneously disclosing data regarding another still accruing endpoint (“overall survival”) and stating that overall survival showed a “preliminary positive trend.” In September 2021, Judge Hazel of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland dismissed the complaint with prejudice, finding that the plaintiff failed to plead any actionable misrepresentation or omission and the allegations failed to raise a strong inference of scienter.
Client Highlights
10.03.22
Firm Secures Victory in Vitamin C Case in U.S. Supreme Court
Wilson Sonsini clients Hebei Welcome and North China Pharmaceutical Group (NCPG) have prevailed in the U.S. Supreme Court in their defense of long-running price-fixing allegations. The case was brought in 2005 against several Chinese Vitamin C exporters. Eventually, everyone except Hebei and NCPG settled, and a judgment of roughly $150 million was entered against them. The firm was retained after the verdict to handle the appeal and succeeded in getting the judgment reversed outright by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. However, the plaintiffs appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which reversed, ruling that the Second Circuit gave too much deference to the Chinese government’s submissions, which had said that China had required the price-fixing at issue. The case then went back to the Second Circuit, which reversed the judgment again. The plaintiffs again sought review in the Supreme Court, but their petition was denied without dissent on October 3, 2022, bringing the case to a final end.
Client Highlights
5.17.22
Wilson Sonsini Obtains Securities Litigation Win for Dropbox
On May 13, 2022, the California Court of Appeal affirmed a decision dismissing a lawsuit filed in state court against Dropbox, its officers, its board of directors, the underwriters, and certain venture capitalists for alleged violations of Section 11 of the Securities Act of 1933 (’33 Act). The suit arose out of Dropbox’s March 2018 IPO, with the plaintiff alleging that Dropbox made false or misleading statements in its registration statement and prospectus. Dropbox moved to dismiss, invoking its Federal Forum Provision (FFP)—a bylaw that states that any lawsuit brought under the ’33 Act must be brought in federal court. Building upon the firm’s win in Salzberg v. Sciabacucchi, in which the Delaware Supreme Court confirmed the validity of FFPs, the California Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court’s ruling that Dropbox’s FFP did not violate the ‘33 Act’s anti-waiver or anti-removal provisions, was constitutional under the Commerce Clause and the Supremacy Clause, and was enforceable under California law. Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati represented Dropbox in the matter.
News Articles
2.15.22
Firm Recognized as 2021 Appellate Group of the Year by Law360
On February 3, 2022, Law360 published a feature article highlighting that Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati recently won a U.S. Supreme Court decision that preserved important constitutional rules for Delaware state courts, which helped land the firm among the publication’s 2021 Appellate Groups of the Year. The profile also referenced the firm’s successful argument against a Federal Trade Commission lawsuit in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit that accused Qualcomm of anti-competitive monopolistic behavior (decided in October 2020), as well as its victory in a major “home field advantage” venue case on behalf of Mylan Pharmaceuticals in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (decided in November 2020).
According to litigation partner Steffen Johnson, who leads Wilson Sonsini’s nationwide Supreme Court and appellate practice and was quoted throughout the article, the wins were important for a growing group that is part of a broader initiative to build out the firm’s national litigation practice, which now includes more than 200 litigators. Approximately 40-50 attorneys self-identify and participate in appellate issues, and Steffen said the firm is confident that both the trial and appellate sides will continue to grow. One area where the appellate group already stands out, according to Steffen, is that the firm has “a particular depth in constitutional issues, and that was at play in the Carney [Supreme Court] case and at play in one pending now involving due process under California law. That’s an area where we have particular depth and a great track record of success.”
The Carney case, decided in December 2020, was significant “not only to the people of Delaware but to businesses across the globe that have long looked to Delaware’s courts for stable and nonpartisan decision-making,” said Senior Of Counsel Michael McConnell, who argued the case in October 2020 during COVID-19 lockdowns over the phone from his rural Utah cabin.
To read the full Appellate Group of the Year profile, please click here.
According to litigation partner Steffen Johnson, who leads Wilson Sonsini’s nationwide Supreme Court and appellate practice and was quoted throughout the article, the wins were important for a growing group that is part of a broader initiative to build out the firm’s national litigation practice, which now includes more than 200 litigators. Approximately 40-50 attorneys self-identify and participate in appellate issues, and Steffen said the firm is confident that both the trial and appellate sides will continue to grow. One area where the appellate group already stands out, according to Steffen, is that the firm has “a particular depth in constitutional issues, and that was at play in the Carney [Supreme Court] case and at play in one pending now involving due process under California law. That’s an area where we have particular depth and a great track record of success.”
The Carney case, decided in December 2020, was significant “not only to the people of Delaware but to businesses across the globe that have long looked to Delaware’s courts for stable and nonpartisan decision-making,” said Senior Of Counsel Michael McConnell, who argued the case in October 2020 during COVID-19 lockdowns over the phone from his rural Utah cabin.
To read the full Appellate Group of the Year profile, please click here.
Client Highlights
12.29.21
Firm Secures Federal Circuit Ruling for Mylan in Insulin Glargine Appeals
On December 29, 2021, Wilson Sonsini secured another win for Mylan as the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed eight decisions from the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) holding patent claims for five Sanofi device patents unpatentable. Sanofi had asserted the patents against Mylan in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. Both the district court and the PTAB held the claims unpatentable, leading to 11 appeals consolidated into four groups. The Federal Circuit heard argument in a marathon session on December 6, 2021, and issued short but strong opinions on December 29 categorically rejecting Sanofi's arguments in eight PTAB appeals and dismissing the remaining appeals as moot in view of the affirmances.
This latest success follows previous wins against Sanofi's insulin glargine formulation patents. Insulin glargine is used to help control high blood sugar in adult and pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and adults with type 2 diabetes. In November, Viatris launched branded and unbranded versions of insulin glargine, the first-ever interchangeable biosimilar.
Wilson Sonsini represents Mylan in patent matters, including those related to this litigation. The team representing Mylan in these appeals includes Rick Torczon, Ellie Steiner, Tasha Thomas, Wes Derryberry, and Steffen Johnson.
This latest success follows previous wins against Sanofi's insulin glargine formulation patents. Insulin glargine is used to help control high blood sugar in adult and pediatric patients with type 1 diabetes and adults with type 2 diabetes. In November, Viatris launched branded and unbranded versions of insulin glargine, the first-ever interchangeable biosimilar.
Wilson Sonsini represents Mylan in patent matters, including those related to this litigation. The team representing Mylan in these appeals includes Rick Torczon, Ellie Steiner, Tasha Thomas, Wes Derryberry, and Steffen Johnson.
News Articles
12.16.21
Wilson Sonsini Receives Honorable Mention in The American Lawyer's 2021 Litigation Department of the Year Recognitions
On December 14, 2021, The American Lawyer published a list of Honorable Mentions for the nationwide 2021 Litigation Department of the Year recognitions. Wilson Sonsini was profiled among the eight firms deserving of honorable mention.
Press Releases
12.11.20
Wilson Sonsini Prevails in Key U.S. Supreme Court Case: Carney v. Adams
In a case closely watched by corporate America, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed a Third Circuit decision and ruled in favor of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati’s client, restoring Delaware’s 122-year-old requirement that its three top courts have a balance between major political parties on their benches.