Matthias A. Kamber
Partner

mkamber@kvn.com
Tel. (415) 773-6635

Education

The George Washington University Law School, J.D., with honors, 2002

Cornell University, B.S. in mechanical engineering, magna cum laude, 1998

Prior Experience

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, D.C.

Clerkships

Hon. Sharon Prost
U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2003-2004

Bar Admissions

California

Massachusetts

New York

Washington D.C.

Matthias A. Kamber

Matthias Kamber focuses on intellectual property matters including patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets. He has tried approximately 10 jury and bench trials, including numerous high-stakes patent matters, and has also handled antitrust and commercial litigation.

Leveraging his mechanical engineering degree, Mr. Kamber has handled patent cases involving Internet advertising and telephony, smartphones, and microprocessors throughout the country and before the U.S. International Trade Commission. Regardless of the type of case or technology, he focuses on identifying key issues early, setting a targeted legal strategy, and balancing corporate objectives. This approach has resulted in favorable pre-trial dispositions, successful negotiated resolutions, and victories at trial.  It has also earned him various public recognitions listed below.

Mr. Kamber currently serves on the Advisory Council of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. He is also committed to the Federal Circuit Bar Association, where he currently serves as a vice-chair of the Amicus Committee and previously served as co-chair of the Veterans Pro Bono, as well as the American Intellectual Property Law Association, where he serves as chair of the Patent Litigation Committee. Mr. Kamber has also represented veterans in pro bono appeals to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.

Cases of Note

Suffolk Technologies LLC v. AOL Inc. and Google Inc.: A Virginia federal judge granted our motion for summary judgment on all but one of Suffolk’s patent infringement claims, and issued a Daubert ruling striking the plaintiff’s expert damages opinion in its entirety. Soon after, Suffolk stipulated to invalidity on the last remaining claim. Suffolk had claimed that Google’s Adsense advertising placement technology, which selectively places paid advertisements for a company’s product or service on the Web page of another, used a similar protocol to the one under patent with Suffolk.

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.: We represented Google in what Oracle claimed to be a multi-billion dollar patent and copyright war concerning the use of the Java programming language in Google’s Android platform. When Oracle bought Sun Microsystems in January 2010, it acquired Sun’s rights to Java. In August of that year, Oracle sued Google, claiming its Android mobile technology infringed Oracle patents and copyrights. We defended Google against all the patent and copyright claims, and also argued that the damage estimates were wildly inflated. Following repeated rounds of motions and briefing, the judge dismissed the bulk of Oracle’s copyright claims, and at trial the jury rendered a unanimous verdict rejecting all claims of patent infringement. Although the jury decided that Google infringed an Oracle copyright on nine out of millions of lines of source code, the case was a sweeping victory for Google, with zero damages. After an appeal by Oracle, the case returned to district court for a trial on fair use. After a two-week trial, the federal jury unanimously found that Google’s use of Oracle’s Java programming language in the Android operating system was a fair use, thereby rejecting Oracle’s claims of infringement in their entirety.

Apple Inc. v. HTC Corp: We served as lead counsel for HTC, a Taiwan-based manufacturer of handheld devices, in its battle with Apple over smartphone technology. Apple first sued HTC in district court and before the International Trade Commission (ITC), claiming our client had infringed 20 patents related to various computer-related technologies, including user interfaces, operating systems, power management, and digital signal processing. The ITC hearing that went to decision resulted in a favorable ruling, and HTC obtained a settlement to become the first Android handset maker licensed by Apple.

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.

Broadcom Corporation, et al. v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation: On behalf of Broadcom, we led a joint-defense group of wireless chip manufacturers, PC manufacturers, and cellular network carriers. The plaintiff, CSIRO, asserted patent claims that allegedly covered a wide variety of products that offer wireless functionality under the IEEE 802.11 standard for local area networks. We settled the case favorably on the eve of trial.

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.

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.

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.

Rembrandt Technologies, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC: We served as lead counsel for Comcast 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. Based upon claim construction, Rembrandt conceded non-infringement of all patents, preserving only its right to appeal the claim construction as to the ninth. The Federal Circuit upheld the claim construction that resulted in non-infringement.

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.

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.

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.

Publications and Presentations

  • "Brexit Will Impact Planned Unified Patent Court,” The National Law Journal, 2017
  • "Parallel Infringement and Invalidity Proceedings Before the UPC," Intellectual Property Magazine, 2016
  • "National and International Patent Law: U.S., Europe, China and Beyond," Patent Disputes for Corporate Counsel Forum, 2015
  • "Key Developments in Patent Law," Bar Association of San Francisco, 2015
  • "Joint/Divided Infringement," 15th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute, 2014
  • "Key Developments in Patent Law," Bar Association of San Francisco, 2014
  • "Developments in Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation," Practising Law Institute, 8th Annual Patent Law Institute, 2014
  • "Best Practices for Litigating & Managing Disputes Under AIA," The Daily Journal/Thomson Reuters Litigating Patent Disputes Conference, 2013
  • "Finding the Best Cure," Intellectual Property Magazine, 2013. Mr. Kamber's article explains how recent White House executive actions and proposals targeting frivolous litigation are efforts to treat the symptoms of a broken system rather than cure it.   

Awards and Honors

  • Federal Circuit Bar Association Public Interest / Pro Bono Award, 2015
  • World’s Leading Patent Practitioners, IAM Patent 1000, 2014, 2015
  • Best Lawyers in America for Intellectual Property and Patent Litigation, 2012 - present
  • Intellectual Property Rising Star, Law360, 2013
  • Northern California Super Lawyer, 2013 - 2016
  • Rising Star, Northern California Super Lawyers, 2010 - 2015
  • Recommended Attorney, Intellectual Property - Patent litigation, The Legal 500 U.S., 2011
  • Committee Individual Leadership Award, Federal Circuit Bar Association, 2011
  • Editor-in-chief, George Washington International Law Review
  • Order of the Coif, George Washington University Law School

Professional Affiliations

  • Advisory Council, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2015-2018
  • Co-Chair, Veterans Pro Bono Committee, Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • Chair, Patent Litigation Committee, American Intellectual Property Law Association, 2015-2016 
  • Vice Chair, Patent Litigation Committee, American Intellectual Property Law Association, 2014-2015 

 

Suffolk Technologies LLC v. AOL Inc. and Google Inc.: A Virginia federal judge granted our motion for summary judgment on all but one of Suffolk’s patent infringement claims, and issued a Daubert ruling striking the plaintiff’s expert damages opinion in its entirety. Soon after, Suffolk stipulated to invalidity on the last remaining claim. Suffolk had claimed that Google’s Adsense advertising placement technology, which selectively places paid advertisements for a company’s product or service on the Web page of another, used a similar protocol to the one under patent with Suffolk.

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.: We represented Google in what Oracle claimed to be a multi-billion dollar patent and copyright war concerning the use of the Java programming language in Google’s Android platform. When Oracle bought Sun Microsystems in January 2010, it acquired Sun’s rights to Java. In August of that year, Oracle sued Google, claiming its Android mobile technology infringed Oracle patents and copyrights. We defended Google against all the patent and copyright claims, and also argued that the damage estimates were wildly inflated. Following repeated rounds of motions and briefing, the judge dismissed the bulk of Oracle’s copyright claims, and at trial the jury rendered a unanimous verdict rejecting all claims of patent infringement. Although the jury decided that Google infringed an Oracle copyright on nine out of millions of lines of source code, the case was a sweeping victory for Google, with zero damages. After an appeal by Oracle, the case returned to district court for a trial on fair use. After a two-week trial, the federal jury unanimously found that Google’s use of Oracle’s Java programming language in the Android operating system was a fair use, thereby rejecting Oracle’s claims of infringement in their entirety.

Apple Inc. v. HTC Corp: We served as lead counsel for HTC, a Taiwan-based manufacturer of handheld devices, in its battle with Apple over smartphone technology. Apple first sued HTC in district court and before the International Trade Commission (ITC), claiming our client had infringed 20 patents related to various computer-related technologies, including user interfaces, operating systems, power management, and digital signal processing. The ITC hearing that went to decision resulted in a favorable ruling, and HTC obtained a settlement to become the first Android handset maker licensed by 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.

Broadcom Corporation, et al. v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation: On behalf of Broadcom, we led a joint-defense group of wireless chip manufacturers, PC manufacturers, and cellular network carriers. The plaintiff, CSIRO, asserted patent claims that allegedly covered a wide variety of products that offer wireless functionality under the IEEE 802.11 standard for local area networks. We settled the case favorably on the eve of trial.

Rembrandt Technologies, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC: We served as lead counsel for Comcast 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. Based upon claim construction, Rembrandt conceded non-infringement of all patents, preserving only its right to appeal the claim construction as to the ninth. The Federal Circuit upheld the claim construction that resulted in non-infringement.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Developed by Tenrec