Attorney Detail Banner
Back to Attorneys
Roberts, Andrea Pallios

Andrea Pallios Roberts

Of Counsel

andreaproberts@quinnemanuel.com
Direct Tel: +1 650-801-5023
Silicon Valley
Tel: +1 650 801 5000 Fax: +1 650 801 5100

Andrea Pallios Roberts’ practice focuses primarily on intellectual property matters, including patent, copyright and trademark infringement, trade secrets, breach of contract, and unfair competition.  She has experience representing clients in cases involving a variety of technologies, including online search systems, online advertising systems, mobile technology, autonomous vehicles, and pharmaceuticals.  She also has experience litigating antitrust, contract, and employment matters.  She has litigated in federal and state courts throughout the country, and has tried cases in California, Texas, Washington, and Delaware.

  • Google Inc.
  • Waymo LLC
  • Pfizer, Inc.
  • HTC
  • Samsung
  • Motorola Mobility
  • Infinera Corporation
  • TIBCO Software
  • The Walt Disney Company
  • Dassault Systemes SolidWorks Corp.
  • Bally Technologies
  • Lead trial counsel for Dan Rasure, TheShop.Build, LLC and TheShop.Build San Fran, LLC in a trademark infringement suit brought by TechShop, Inc. in the Northern District of California. The plaintiff alleged that the former name of the defendants’ business, TechShop 2.0, and the current name of the business infringed the plaintiff’s TECHSHOP service marks. After a seven-day jury trial, the jury returned a verdict that defendants infringed TechShop’s marks, but awarded TechShop no damages.
  • Represented Waymo, LLC against Uber in a highly publicized trade secret misappropriation lawsuit in the Northern District of California.  Waymo was previously Google’s self-driving vehicle division, and is now a subsidiary of Google’s parent company, Alphabet.  A former employee stole Waymo trade secrets and founded his own company, which was acquired by Uber just a few months after being founded.  Waymo sued Uber for trade secret misappropriation.  After four days of trial in which Waymo presented much of its case-in-chief, the parties reached a favorable settlement for Waymo.  Uber granted Waymo a percentage of equity in Uber valued at $245 million, as well as injunctive relief that assures Uber will not use Waymo’s trade secret hardware and software self-driving car technology. 
  • Represented Google Inc. in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas in which plaintiff Mobile Telecommunications Technologies, LLC alleged infringement of four patents.  The plaintiff asserted the patents against various messaging services available on Android devices.
  • Represented a pharmaceutical company in a breach of contract action in Delaware Chancery Court relating to a distributor’s breach of a distribution agreement for an antidote for 5-fluorouracil (5-FU), a commonly used chemotherapy drug.  Our client was awarded damages of over $55 million.
  • Represented TIBCO Software, Inc. in a copyright and breach of contract lawsuit filed by GlaxoSmithKline LLC in the Eastern District of North Carolina relating to risk-based monitoring software.  After a successful motion to dismiss and limited discovery, the case settled favorably for TIBCO.
  • Represented Oriental Trading Company in a copyright and trademark infringement lawsuit filed by Trade West, Inc. in the District of Hawaii.  The plaintiff claimed that Oriental Trading Company’s hibiscus leis infringed the plaintiff’s copyrights and trademarks.
  • Represented Pfizer, Inc. in a breach of contract action against Amgen Fremont (f/k/a Abgenix, Inc.) and Amgen, Inc. in Delaware Chancery Court related to the prosecution of patents claiming certain antibodies discovered during the course of a joint research program involving Pfizer and Abgenix. 
  • Represented Google Inc. and YouTube in a patent infringement suit in the District of Delaware, in which plaintiff Personalized User Model, LLC accused Google’s search, advertising, and YouTube systems of infringing two patents relating to personalization services.  The jury found all claims not infringed, and the patents invalid as anticipated and obvious.  The jury further found that one of the named inventors breached his employment agreement with his prior employer (whose rights to the asserted patents Google had purchased) by failing to assign the inventions to that employer.
  • Represented Google Inc. in Perfect 10 v. Google in the Central District of California, in which Google was accused of copyright infringement, trademark infringement, and violation of rights of publicity.  Obtained summary judgment of safe harbor under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, which precluded the plaintiff from seeking any monetary damages for almost all of more than two million alleged copyright infringements, successfully opposed plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction, and successfully opposed plaintiff’s Ninth Circuit appeal of both orders.  The plaintiff dismissed the case without Google paying a cent.  
  • Represented Motorola Mobility in trial of a breach of contract action against Microsoft in the Western District of Washington.  The case involved standard setting organizations and FRAND licensing commitments.  Microsoft alleged Motorola Mobility breached the duty of good faith and fair dealing in FRAND licensing commitments.
  • Represented Samsung, HTC, Motorola Mobility, and Google against French digital security company Gemalto.  Gemalto alleged that Defendants’ Android devices infringed three of its patents directed at allowing Java-based applications to run on smart cards and microcontrollers.  Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement.
  • Represented Google Inc. in a suit in the Eastern District of Texas brought by Bright Response, accusing Google’s advertising system of patent infringement.  The patent related to a method for providing automatic responses to electronic messages.  The plaintiff sought over $120 million in damages.  Obtained a complete defense verdict of non-infringement and invalidity as to all asserted claims.
  • Represented Dassault Systemes SolidWorks Corporation against claims of false designation of origin, false advertising, and unfair competition in the Northern District of California.  Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement by showing that plaintiff could not meet its burden of proving distinctiveness of its asserted trade dress.  Obtained a favorable settlement on the remaining claims on the eve of trial.
  • Represented Google Inc. in a patent infringement action brought by PA Advisors, LLC, in the Eastern District of Texas.  The asserted patents related to personalizing Internet search results.  The Court granted Google’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement as to all asserted claims. 
  • Represented The Walt Disney Company in a copyright infringement suit in the Northern District of California in which the plaintiff claimed that Pixar’s Finding Nemo was an unauthorized derivative work of plaintiff’s poem.  The Court dismissed the complaint on the grounds of lack of substantial similarity.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s decision.
  • Represented Palm Inc. in a trademark infringement suit in the Northern District of California.  The plaintiff dismissed the lawsuit after we successfully opposed a motion for temporary restraining order and opposed a motion for a preliminary injunction.
  • Represented Bally Technologies in a case brought by Shuffle Master and International Gaming Technology in the District of Nevada, alleging infringement of patents relating to casino table game monitoring.  The Court granted Bally’s motion for summary judgment of obviousness on one of the patents asserted by plaintiffs, and granted Bally’s motion for summary judgment of non-infringement on the other patent.  The Court also granted Bally’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claims of correction of inventorship on a number of Bally’s patents.
  • Represented a major manufacturer of traffic control equipment in a bench trial of a civil antitrust enforcement action brought by the California Attorney General in Los Angeles County Superior Court.  The case involved claims of illegal tying in the market for traffic signal equipment.
  • University of California, Hastings College of the Law
    (J.D.,  magna cum laude, 2003)
    • Member, Order of the Coif
    • Member, Hastings Thurston Society
    • Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 2002-03
      • Notes Editor
    • Hastings Moot Court team
  • University of California at Los Angeles
    (B.A., Political Science, cum laude, 2000)
    • Received the Sylvia Sorkin Greenfield Memorial Prize for best honors thesis, entitled Ethnic Conflict.
The State Bar of California; United States Courts of Appeal: Ninth Circuit, Federal Circuit; United States District Courts: Northern District of California, Central District of California, Southern District of California, Eastern District of Texas
  • Should We Have Faith in the Faith-Based Initiative?: A Constitutional Analysis of President Bush’s Charitable Choice Plan, published in the Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, 2002
  • Association of Business Trial Lawyers
  • San Mateo County Bar Association
  • California Women Lawyers
  • Women’s Intellectual Property Lawyers Association