Notable Representations

• Led the trial team, along with Joe Tuffaha, on behalf of South Korean conglomerate DAS Corporation against Optional Capital, Inc. in what an appellate court described as “an extremely tangled thicket of legal proceedings in both state and federal court.” DAS was accused of conspiring with a convicted fraudster to loot the corporate coffers of Optional and create a political slush fund for a former President of South Korea. Before Prashanth and Joe were retained, Optional had already won an eight-figure judgment against the alleged co-conspirators and sought to recover over $150 million from DAS. Following a month-long trial and subsequent appeal, DAS prevailed entirely. Prashanth cross examined all of Optional’s witnesses, delivered the closing argument, and argued the appeal.

  Separately in federal court, Optional sought to enforce another judgment against DAS through contempt proceedings. Following a two-year appeal, the Ninth Circuit rejected the claim in a published opinion and later published another opinion sanctioning Optional’s lawyers.

• Trial counsel for acclaimed chemist and entrepreneur Dr. Anton Toutov in a founder dispute. Dr. Toutov was ousted from the company after four years and received no compensation for his ownership interest. After a successful summary judgment ruling, Dr. Toutov settled on confidential terms with the corporate entities, but the individual defendants went to trial. After a week-long trial, a federal jury deliberated for less than 90 minutes before awarding Dr. Toutov 100% of the damages sought, plus punitive damages. The trial team received a shout-out from ALM’s “Litigator of the Week.”

  At trial, Prashanth cross-examined both defendants and delivered the opening statement and closing argument. A juror later commented that the cross of the key defendant started with Prashanth being “exceedingly polite” and ended with his “foot on the [defendant’s] throat.”

• Currently representing SPI Group in a multi-jurisdictional dispute with actor Brad Pitt concerning the ownership and management of Château Miraval, a leading wine producer.

• Appellate counsel for NBC in its defense against Oksana Baiul’s long-running dispute over royalties allegedly owed for her 1994 performance in “Nutcracker on Ice.” Ms. Baiul sought over $10 million. NBC prevailed at the the Ninth Circuit, which affirmed the dismissal of all claims. Watch Prashanth’s argument here.

• Successfully represented a prominent COVID-testing company in a high-profile litigation involving former executives who allegedly embezzled hundreds of millions of dollars from the company.

• Counsel for engineer and entrepreneur George Betak in a founder dispute against European energy giant Enel. In 2013, Mr. Betak developed one of the earliest implementations of a smart electric vehicle charger. The company Mr. Betak helped found was later sold to European energy giant Enel, but Mr. Betak was deprived entirely of any money for his ownership interest. The case settled on confidential terms after Prashanth took over from another firm, defeated pending motions, and filed revised allegations.

• Settled dispute on behalf of an individual who co-founded one of the country’s most successful digital advertising companies (and was allegedly frozen out of the company and denied his equity by his co-founders) on confidential terms.

• Counsel for the estate of Jean Royère, the iconic mid-century French furniture designer whose original furniture sells for millions at auction. Although the estate owned no registered U.S. copyrights, after a years-long battle over the copyrightability, provenance, and infringement, the team obtained summary judgment recognizing the copyrights were valid and infringed. The dispute settled on confidential terms shortly thereafter.

• Successfully represented a publicly traded nutraceutical company in Lanham Act litigation in S.D.N.Y. against a major competitor. After competitor attempted to renege on a multimillion-dollar, multi-jurisdictional settlement memorialized in an email, Prashanth successfully moved to enforce the settlement.

• Counsel for TP-Link, a multinational networking equipment company in an antitrust and unfair competition suit. The plaintiff alleged TP-Link conspired to eliminate competition in the e-commerce resale market, including by falsely accusing retailers of selling counterfeit goods. After taking over the defense from another firm, Prashanth obtained an appellate victory at the Ninth Circuit that dismissed the antitrust claims. Later, the district court in the Central District of California granted summary judgment as to remaining state law claims, which the Ninth Circuit affirmed. The result was a complete victory for TP-Link.

• Counsel for TP-Link in a putative nationwide false advertising class action. The plaintiffs alleged that TP-Link misrepresented the speed of its networking products, which were allegedly much slower in real life than advertised. Although such disputes are inherently factual, the district court in the Northern District of California dismissed the case entirely based on technical reference materials that showed the plaintiffs were intentionally misreading the at-issue advertising.

• Counsel for Bird, the pioneering electric scooter company, in a class action. The plaintiff alleged that Bird’s entire business model was unlawful because the company encouraged users to trespass on private property by permitting them to leave scooters on stoops, lawns, and walkways. He sought the certification of a nationwide class and, among other relief, an injunction that would prevent the scooters from being parked anywhere near private property. First, Prashanth forced the plaintiff to narrow his allegations substantially based on the local action doctrine, which requires that disputes concerning property be brought only in the state where the property is located. Then, he convinced the district court in the Central District of California to strike all class allegations, which ended the litigation.

• Counsel for the sellers of a startup in a post-merger dispute in the Delaware Court of Chancery. The at-issue merger agreement called for a significant portion of the purchase price to be placed in escrow to cover various potential claims. Post-merger, the buyer claimed it should retain all of the funds. After discovery and key depositions, the dispute settled on confidential terms.

• Counsel for a licensing entity in a patent action over network technology in the district court for the Eastern District of Texas. After summary judgment briefing and shortly before trial, the case settled on confidential terms.

• In a public-interest litigation, Prashanth represented a Los Angeles neighborhood group against the City based on Los Angeles’s grant of permits to build a skyscraper in the Koreatown neighborhood without appropriate environmental reviews. Prashanth prevailed in a court trial, which vacated the approval.

• On behalf of Thomson Reuters, obtained summary judgment on a complex contractual dispute alleging millions in liability for failure to deliver promised advertising leads.

• Obtained summary judgment (and attorneys' fees) for defendants in complex partnership dispute, in which plaintiff claimed tens of millions in unpaid royalties over decades.

• Obtained complete dismissal of antitrust, contract, and unfair competition claims on behalf of a nationwide radio broadcaster for an alleged exclusion of radio programming producers.

• Obtained summary judgment, and affirmance on appeal, of an antitrust claim against a satellite television distributor accused of improperly excluding retailers from the marketplace.

• Obtained favorable settlement on the eve of trial in a trade secrets misappropriation action for a nationwide roofing supply distributor.

• Obtained favorable settlement, after filing summary judgment motion, in a trade secrets misappropriation action on behalf of a multinational venture capital firm.

• Successfully represented a smartphone manufacturer in complex, multi-year intellectual property litigations in the Northern District of California that included three jury trials and numerous appeals.

Education

Columbia Law School (J.D., Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar)

University of Southern California (B.A.)