When cases matter most, the world’s leading innovators and product developers call on us to protect their technology and intellectual property, indeed the core of their business. We help our clients deal with IP disputes of every type -- patents, trade secrets, copyrights, and trademarks.
We have successfully litigated and tried cases involving technical fields ranging from telecom to biotech, from semiconductors to pharmaceuticals, and from cellular to medical devices. For market leaders to startups - domestic and foreign clients - from Delaware to Virginia to Texas to Wisconsin to California - we are the "go to" lawyers for many of the most novel and significant IP disputes throughout the country.
Robert Van Nest was named the 2013 "Lawyer of the Year" by California Lawyer, and the 2012 "Lawyer of the Year" by the Daily Journal and The Recorder for successfully defending Google against Oracle's $6 billion copyright and patent claims over technology in the Android operating system.
Chambers ranks Keker & Van Nest as one of the top Intellectual property firms in the nation. John Keker, Robert Van Nest and Jeffrey Chanin are ranked as Band 1 lawyers in California.
The Daily Journal has recognized Robert Van Nest, Ashok Ramani, David Silbert, Jeffrey Chanin, Elliot Peters, and Michael Kwun as Leading IP Litigators in California.
Legal 500 stated we have "the ability to cut through to the essence of a case and empower juries and judges to decide complex issues."
Cases of Note
Netflix, Inc. v. Rovi:
We defended our clients Netflix, Inc. and Roku Corporation in a U.S. International Trade Commission complaint filed by Rovi Corporation. The complaint accused our clients, along with Mitsubishi Electric Corp., LG Electronics Inc., and Vizio Inc., of infringing several patents related to interactive program guides. The complaint sought an order banning television and media-player makers from entering the U.S. By the time of the trial, the other defendants had settled and our clients faced four patents. We successfully defended our clients, with the ALJ finding one of the patents invalid and none of the patents infringed, as well as no actionable importation or available remedy. The ITC reviewed the entire investigation and confirmed there was no violation. Rovi then pursued the matter in District Court with three of the same patents used in the ITC investigation as well as two additional patents. We composed a strategy which drew upon recent developments in patentable subject matter eligibility, and won our motion for summary judgment of invalidity on all five patents.
Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.:
We represented Google in a high-stakes patent and copyright war brought by Oracle with billions of dollars at stake. Oracle, which bought the Java programming language by acquiring Sun Microsystems in January 2010, alleged that Google’s Android mobile technology infringed Oracle's Java patents and copyrights. An expert for Oracle estimated Google owed Oracle up to $6 billion in damages for infringement. Our team 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 is considered a sweeping victory for Google, with zero damages.
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 on 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.
VS Technologies LLC v. Twitter Inc.:
By winning a defense verdict in this federal jury trial, we protected Twitter Inc. from a patent infringement suit and $40 million damages claim. Virginia-based VS Technologies had obtained a patent for “an interactive virtual community of famous people,” and sued Twitter over its virtual community technology. During the six-day trial, we argued that Twitter's Browse Interests feature did not infringe the terms of the patent and that in fact, the patent was invalid. The jury agreed, and found Twitter not liable for patent infringement.
Cadence Design Systems, Inc. v. Avant! Corporation:
We secured an injunction, restitution and settlement monies totaling $460 million for our client Cadence Design Systems, Inc. in a trade secret misappropriation suit against Avant! and its founders. After successfully handling the civil matter, the largest trade secret litigation to date, we referred the case to the Santa Clara County District Attorney which secured criminal convictions of the company and four executives.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC v. Finisar Corporation:
We won summary judgment dismissing Sunnyvale-based Finisar Corporation’s patent infringement claim against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. We first convinced U.S. District Court Judge William Alsup to cut potential damages from $590 million to $140 million, and later to invalidate the data transmission patent at issue. Finisar appealed, however the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling.
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.
Abbott v. Medtronic, Inc.:
Prior to our retention in this matter, U.S. District Court Judge Lowell Jensen had found that Medtronic, Inc. willfully infringed on Abbott's delivery system patent and enjoined Medtronic until that patent expired. The injunction included language for its term to extend if Abbott applied to extend the patent, which the company did at the same time Medtronic planned to release its device. We were then brought on as co-counsel for Medtronic, and persuaded the judge to terminate the injunction upon the patent’s natural expiration date. As a result, Medtronic's Endeavor Rx stent is now for sale on the U.S. market.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company v. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation:
We represented TSMC against China's then-leading semiconductor manufacturer, SMIC, in the largest trade secret misuse case tried to date. SMIC owed its very existence to technology stolen from our client. Following a jury verdict on liability in favor of TSMC, SMIC agreed to pay $200 million in cash and approximately $130 million of its company stock. The case serves as precedent for the strong protection afforded by California's trade secret statute, even where the actual theft occurred in Asia.
Network Appliance v. BlueArc Corporation:
We served as lead counsel for network storage newcomer BlueArc Corporation. We obtained summary judgment for BlueArc in this multi-patent case in the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, industry stalwart Network Appliance, asserted more than 50 patent claims concerning fileserver hardware and software, and sought an injunction which would have ended our client's business. The victory on summary judgment was upheld on appeal.
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.