Paven Malhotra
Partner

pmalhotra@keker.com
Tel. (415) 676-2238

Education

Harvard Law School, J.D., magna cum laude, 2005

Harvard College, B.A., summa cum laude, 2002

Prior Experience

Williams & Connolly LLP

Clerkships

Chief Judge James Loken
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 2005-2006

Bar Admissions

California

New York

Minnesota

Washington, DC

Paven Malhotra

Paven Malhotra litigates high-stakes business and intellectual property disputes on behalf of clients ranging from Fortune 100 companies to Silicon Valley startups. He also maintains an active pro bono practice

IP Litigation for Leading Technology Companies

Mr. Malhotra litigates intellectual property cases in federal and state courts throughout the United States, including the International Trade Commission. He has litigated complex patent disputes for Comcast, Intel, HTC, and TSMC, and helped win the largest trade secrets dispute in California history, which resulted in a nine-figure recovery for his client after a ten-week jury trial.

Complex Commercial & Regulatory Litigation

Mr. Malhotra also handles numerous complex commercial and regulatory disputes. He is currently defending Standard & Poor’s in a multi-billion dollar lawsuit brought by the United States for credit ratings issued during the financial crisis. He has also represented law firms in malpractice disputes, executives in criminal actions, and numerous companies in contract and business disputes.

3D Printing Law

As part of his intellectual property practice, Mr. Malhotra has been at the forefront of cutting-edge technology disputes concerning 3D printing. He has emerged as a leading commentator and sought-after expert on the emerging intellectual property disputes facing 3D printing manufacturers, file-sharing websites, and other participants in the rapidly developing field of 3D printing.

Cases of Note

Bowe v. Public Storage: We defended the United States’ largest self-storage operator, Public Storage, from a consumer class action lawsuit. The plaintiff alleged our client deceived customers who bought tenant insurance policies. The plaintiff claimed Public Storage sold tenant insurance to him and other storage consumers without properly disclosing that the company retains a “substantial portion” of the premiums. The suit claimed that the insurance program offered by Public Storage was “a hidden profit center for itself that kicks back unconscionable profits at the expense of consumers.” The suit, filed in Miami federal court, sought restitution for all of the insurance premiums paid to Public Storage by its customers over the past four years. Within three months of being retained, and just seven months before trial, we prevailed on a Summary Judgment Motion which dismissed the class’ RICO claim. The matter settled favorably two days before trial.

United States v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., et al.: As lead counsel for McGraw Hill and its Standard and Poor’s division, we defended our client from the government’s suit which sought at least $5 billion in penalties under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act. The government accused S&P of fraud in its rating of hundreds of residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) in the years leading up to the financial crisis in 2008. McGraw Hill ultimately settled with the government, and more than 20 states that made similar claims under state laws.

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.

Eastman Kodak Co. v. HTC Corp.: We defended HTC in a five-patent investigation brought by Kodak before the International Trade Commission. The action accused dozens of mobile devices of infringing digital imaging patents that covered a range of technologies, including image capture, processing, display, compression and transmission. Consistent with ITC practice, our defense took place on a fast schedule, with a hearing date that was set approximately one year from the start of the investigation and fact discovery being completed in approximately six months. Just prior to the scheduled hearing date, the case was resolved when the Kodak patent portfolio was sold.

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v. BT Americas et al.: We represented Comcast in asserting multiple patents against BT in the Northern District of Texas. The patents at issue covered multiple networking technologies, including congestion management, routing, policy management, security, and audio/video conferencing. Through a successful summary judgment and stipulated dismissals, we reached a very favorable resolution.

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.

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. Sheriff's Department: We represented an individual in his excessive force claim against a Sherriff's department. The case was settled on terms favorable to our client.

State of California v. California First Amendment Coalition: We sought to enforce the media's first amendment rights in response to a broad gag order. The case, which involved cutting-edge constitutional issues, stemmed from the 2009 Bay Area Rapid Transit Police shooting of Oscar Grant.

Publications and Presentations

Awards and Honors

  • Editor, Harvard International Law Journal, Harvard Law School
  • Research assistant for Professor Louis Kaplow, Harvard Law School
  • Phi Beta Kappa, Harvard College

Professional Affiliations

  • Board of Directors, California Bar Foundation
  • Board of Directors, American Liver Foundation (Northern California Chapter)
  • Member, National South Asian Bar Association, Judicial Endorsements

Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v. BT Americas et al.: We represented Comcast in asserting multiple patents against BT in the Northern District of Texas. The patents at issue covered multiple networking technologies, including congestion management, routing, policy management, security, and audio/video conferencing. Through a successful summary judgment and stipulated dismissals, we reached a very favorable resolution.

Eastman Kodak Co. v. HTC Corp.: We defended HTC in a five-patent investigation brought by Kodak before the International Trade Commission. The action accused dozens of mobile devices of infringing digital imaging patents that covered a range of technologies, including image capture, processing, display, compression and transmission. Consistent with ITC practice, our defense took place on a fast schedule, with a hearing date that was set approximately one year from the start of the investigation and fact discovery being completed in approximately six months. Just prior to the scheduled hearing date, the case was resolved when the Kodak patent portfolio was sold.

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.

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.

United States v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., et al.: As lead counsel for McGraw Hill and its Standard and Poor’s division, we defended our client from the government’s suit which sought at least $5 billion in penalties under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act. The government accused S&P of fraud in its rating of hundreds of residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) in the years leading up to the financial crisis in 2008. McGraw Hill ultimately settled with the government, and more than 20 states that made similar claims under state laws.

Financial Institution v. Law Firm: We defended a large Nebraska law firm from a multi-million dollar legal malpractice case in connection with a real estate transaction. The action stemmed from a separate law firm’s failure to adequately protect a financial institution’s priority in a debt transaction where that client was the lender. As a result of the law firm’s failure to ensure the proper paperwork was filed, the client lost its priority to subsequent lienholders when the borrower went bankrupt. Six months after the original law firm’s malpractice occurred, our client was hired and then sued for indemnification by the financial institution as a third party. On the eve of trial, the plaintiff dismissed our client from the litigation.

United States v. Executive: We defended the former owner of a California-based agribusiness company from antitrust, mail fraud and bribery charges brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sacramento. Prosecutors alleged our client violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the tomato processing industry by raising and fixing prices, and rigging bids for the sale of tomato paste within the U.S. We were able to negotiate a successful plea agreement.

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.

Developed by Tenrec