Michael J. Zaken

Zaken’s representative matters include:

• Representation of Epic Games as plaintiff in two high‑profile antitrust actions against Google and Apple, alleging anticompetitive behavior in the distribution of mobile apps and the handling of in‑app payments. Mr. Zaken continues to represent Epic in connection with both matters.
  • After a multi‑week trial in the case against Google, a jury unanimously ruled in favor of Epic on all counts. In connection with this victory, the Cravath team was recognized as The Am Law Litigation Daily’s “Litigators of the Week” and received an Impact Case Award from Benchmark Litigation. The Ninth Circuit granted a complete affirmance of the jury verdict in Epic’s favor and upheld the permanent injunction against Google.
  • Following a three‑week bench trial in the Apple case, the court issued a permanent injunction against Apple’s anti‑steering policies. After another multi‑day trial, the court issued a ruling to enforce the permanent injunction, holding Apple in civil contempt and determining that Apple willfully violated the injunction.
• Representing Prime Therapeutics in litigation brought by the State of Michigan alleging an agreement to fix pharmacy reimbursement rates for prescription drugs.
• Represented Illumina in an administrative challenge brought by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) concerning Illumina’s $8 billion acquisition of GRAIL, a healthcare company developing a cancer screening test for 50 cancer types. The FTC’s Chief Administrative Law Judge ruled in favor of Illumina and rejected the FTC’s challenge to the merger.
• Represented Fifth Season Investments, LLC, a Blue Owl life insurance investment portfolio company, in securing a favorable settlement in a dispute against GWG Holdings, Inc. and GWG Life, LLC (together “GWG”) concerning the payment of a break‑up fee owed in connection with GWG’s chapter 11 proceedings.
• Represented Louis Dreyfus, a leading international merchant and processor of agricultural goods, and its subsidiary Imperial Sugar Company in an action brought by the Department of Justice (DOJ) in Delaware federal court seeking to enjoin U.S. Sugar’s proposed acquisition of Imperial Sugar from Louis Dreyfus. The court ruled in favor of the defendants, denying the DOJ’s request for an injunction to block the acquisition, and the Third Circuit unanimously affirmed the ruling.
• Representation of Qualcomm Incorporated in numerous high‑stakes disputes and investigations around the world, including:
  • FTC v. Qualcomm Incorporated:  A suit filed by the FTC in California federal court alleging violations of Section 5 of the FTC Act and seeking a permanent injunction against Qualcomm. In a complete defense victory for Qualcomm, the Ninth Circuit unanimously reversed the district court’s prior judgment and vacated a permanent, worldwide injunction that had prohibited several of Qualcomm’s core business practices.
  • Apple Inc. v. Qualcomm Incorporated: An action filed by Apple against Qualcomm in California federal court. Following opening statements at trial, the parties reached a global settlement that included a payment from Apple to Qualcomm; the companies also reached a six‑year license agreement and a multi‑year chipset supply agreement.

• Represented PG&E in hundreds of lawsuits, including numerous putative class actions, filed against the company arising out of the unprecedented 2017 and 2018 California wildfires—one of the largest and most complex sets of mass tort litigation in recent years—and helped to steer the company through the largest utility bankruptcy in U.S. history.

• Represented Alarm.com in a patent infringement action relating to interactive security and home automation technology, including petitions for inter partes review of the asserted patents.

• Represented British American Tobacco before the North Carolina Supreme Court in putative class action litigation arising out of Reynolds American Inc.’s $27.6 billion acquisition of Lorillard, winning a decision that overturned the state’s Court of Appeals and dismissed the suit.

• Represented Westpac Banking Corporation in a putative class action asserting, inter alia, antitrust, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) and Commodity Exchange Act claims premised upon alleged manipulation of the Australian Bank Bill Swap Reference Rate (“BBSW”). Zaken also represented Westpac in a separate putative class action securities litigation concerning the reporting of over 19.5 million international funds transfer instructions to the Australian Transaction Reports and Analysis Centre (“AUSTRAC”), contrary to Australian law.

• Represented a German parent company and its U.S. subsidiary in connection with litigation and an investigation involving entities and subsidiaries in Germany, the U.S. and Brazil.