Matthias Kamber specializes in intellectual property, patent and antitrust litigation. He has represented companies and individuals in trade secret, trademark, and copyright matters, as well as IP-related breach of contract actions. He also has experience in the overlap between intellectual property rights and antitrust, and was involved in large-scale antitrust litigation involving the four major credit card networks.
He has successfully represented companies in various fields, including Internet telephony, wireless networking, medical devices, microprocessor design, optical disc players, and pharmaceuticals.
Mr. Kamber has handled cases in state and federal courts in California, New York, Delaware, Texas, and Washington. In addition to his trial and litigation practice, he has been involved in numerous appeals and amicus filings before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Cases of Note
Apple Inc. v. HTC Corp: We are lead counsel for HTC, a Taiwan-based manufacturer of handheld devices, in its ongoing battle with Apple over smartphone technology. Apple has charged HTC with patent infringement in district court and before the International Trade Commission (ITC). We are also representing HTC as a plaintiff in a separate ITC proceeding in which the company is asserting its own patents against Apple.
Caritas Technologies v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld our successful defense of a $2.2 billion patent infringement claim against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. The plaintiff had asserted that Comcast’s Digital Voice service infringed on its patents for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology. We obtained a non-infringement judgment in the Eastern District of Texas, which was sustained on appeal.
Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. Semiconductor Company: We represented a leading semiconductor company in a patent trial brought in the Eastern District of Texas. The Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO) asserted patent infringement claims against more than a dozen of the world's leading technology companies, including our client. CSIRO contended the defendants' Wi-Fi products infringed on CSIRO's patent, and sought nine to ten figure royalty payments. A week into the jury trial, we reached a favorable settlement with CSIRO, and the remaining parties also settled favorably.
Discover v. Visa USA, Inc.: We defended Visa USA, Inc. in one of the largest private civil antitrust matters in U.S. history. Discover sued MasterCard and Visa for alleged antitrust violations, claiming that credit card network rules affected member banks’ ability to issue American Express and Discover cards. The case settled on the eve of trial for billions less than Discover claimed. We also defended Visa in a similar action brought by American Express.
Multinational Biotechnology Company v. Biopharmaceutical Company: We won partial summary judgment for a Seattle biopharmaceutical company and its founder in a trade secret and contract action over a cystic fibrosis drug. Aided by that ruling, and the favorable progress of the trial relating to the remaining claims, another biotechnology company acquired our client for $365 million mid-trial.
Awards and Honors
-
Best Lawyers in America for Patent Litigation, 2012
-
Recommended Attorney, Intellectual Property - Patent litigation, The Legal 500 U.S., 2011
-
Committee Individual Leadership Award, Federal Circuit Bar Association, 2011
-
Rising Star, Northern California Super Lawyers, 2010 and 2011
-
Editor-in-chief, George Washington International Law Review
-
Order of the Coif, George Washington University Law School
Professional Affiliations
Federal Circuit Bar Association
American Intellectual Property Law Association
Abbott and Fournier v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.: We represented Impax Laboratories, Inc. against Abbott and the French pharmaceutical company Fournier in a plaintiff-side antitrust case that alleged monopolization in a drug market. We led the trial presentation for all of the plaintiffs, and secured a settlement for Impax midway through the trial.
Acacia Media Technology v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC: We defended Comcast Cable Communications, LLC as part of a large joint-defense group handling patent infringement claims related to video-on-demand services. The plaintiff, Acacia Media Technology, sought hundreds of millions in royalties from more than 40 cable TV, satellite TV, and Internet streaming companies, alleging its patents covered virtually all transmission of compressed digital video or audio files. After extensive claim-construction proceedings, U.S. District Judge James Ware held that the patents were invalid and granted summary judgment for our client and the other defendants. The U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed that judgment.
Plaintiff v. Pharmaceutical Company: The plaintiff alleged our client, one of the world’s largest manufacturers of kidney dialysis machines, infringed on patents for touchscreens.
Broadcom Corporation, et al. v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation: We represent Broadcom and are leading a joint-defense group consisting of wireless chip manufacturers, PC manufacturers, and cellular network carriers against the Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation, which asserts that its patent claims cover a wide variety of products that offer wireless functionality under the IEEE 802.11 standard for local area networks.
Rembrandt Technologies, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC: We won a complete victory for Comcast Cable Communications, LLC in a patent infringement case involving high-speed Internet and digital TV services. Rembrandt Technologies, Inc. originally filed the case in the Eastern District of Texas, but in conjunction with other co-defendants, we obtained consolidation and transfer to the District of Delaware. Following completion of discovery, claim construction, and summary judgment briefing, Rembrandt dropped eight patents altogether, and conceding non-infringement of the ninth, preserved only its appeal rights as to that patent.
Web Telephony v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC: We are representing Comcast Cable Communications, LLC against claims that its Digital Voice system infringed on four patents owned by patent troll Web Telephony, Inc. The case is proceeding in the Eastern District of Texas.
Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Semiconductor Company: The patent arm of the University of Wisconsin brought patent claims against our client for its core microprocessor technology. As co-lead counsel we defended the company, and settled the case favorably on the eve of trial.
Plaintiff v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.: Impax Laboratories, Inc. asked us to take over a false advertising case regarding the company's generic drug that had been litigated for two years. Within several months we took 20 depositions, secured five expert reports, and settled the case on very favorable terms for our client.
Plaintiff v. Internet Search Engine: We represented a leading Internet search engine and its subsidiary against claims of unfair competition, dilution and various tort claims. The case involved novel issues of online trademark and domain-name law. After we successfully moved to dismiss various claims made by the plaintiff, the case was settled.
Plaintiff v. Bioscience Company: We defended a bioscience company against claims that it breached a licensing agreement, and fought a motion for a preliminary injunction. The case was resolved via early evaluation and negotiation.