Edward Bayley

We are defending Netflix against a 12-patent case Broadcom filed in the Central District of California. We successfully transferred the case to the Northern District of California, where it is pending before Judge James Donato. We successfully obtained rulings dismissing six of the patents as abstract under Alice, with an additional patent invalidated during inter partes review proceedings before the PTAB. We are also defending Netflix against a separate 5-patent case originally brought by Broadcom in the Eastern District of Texas. A three-judge Federal Circuit panel ordered the district court to transfer the case to the Northern District of California where it is now proceeding before Judge Edward Chen. After the transfer, the firm achieved a stay of all district court proceedings pending inter partes review proceedings before the PTAB.

We are defending Google in a series of patent cases alleging that Google’s network protocol infringes Jenam’s patents. A three-judge Federal Circuit panel ordered the district court to transfer the case out of the Western District of Texas where it was originally filed, ruling that the court abused its discretion by denying Google’s motion to move the case to California. The lawsuit is now proceeding before Judge Jon Tigar in the Northern District of California. Following the transfer order, the firm achieved a stay of all district court proceedings pending inter partes review proceedings before the PTAB.

We represent Moonton, a Chinese video game developer, in a lawsuit filed by Riot Games asserting claims of copyright and trademark infringement relating to Riot’s League of Legends video game. We filed a motion to dismiss based on the doctrine of forum non conveniens, arguing that Riot should be required to pursue its claims in China because its lawsuit was intertwined with and inconsistent with a pending Chinese lawsuit filed by Riot’s parent company, Tencent. The Court granted the motion and dismissed the lawsuit.

We are defending Google in a series of patent cases brought by EcoFactor targeting Google’s Nest products, which are pending in the Northern District of California, which have been stayed pending inter partes review proceedings before the PTAB. We previously defended Google at trial in the Western District of Texas against patent claims brought by EcoFactor that involved four asserted patents, one of which EcoFactor dropped, and another of which we invalidated before trial. Two remaining patents proceeded to trial before Judge Albright. We obtained a jury verdict of non-infringement on one patent, and although the jury found one claim of the other infringed, we limited damages and eliminated running royalties.

Representing 10X Genomics, an innovative biotech company that has revolutionized the analysis of biological samples, we won a declaratory judgment trial in Massachusetts state court that preserved 10X’s exclusive license to a key biotech patent it had licensed from Harvard University.

We defended Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company against patent infringement claims targeting TSMC’s entire 20 nm and 16 nm semiconductor products, accusing a portion of manufacturing process relating to metallization. The case was brought by the sole named inventor, who also sued Huawei, Apple, and Applied Materials. We successfully transferred the case out of the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of California and negotiate a favorable settlement.

Representing the County of Santa Clara, Keker, Van Nest & Peters won a nationwide injunction against President Donald J. Trump’s January 2017 executive order that attempted to defund state and local governments deemed to be “sanctuary jurisdictions.” KVP argued that the executive order violated the Constitution’s separation of powers, the Tenth Amendment, and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. In granting the motion for a preliminary injunction, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick determined that the County was likely to succeed on all four of its constitutional claims, and that the County is suffering immediate and irreparable harm.

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.

To seize control of the Koret Foundation, Susan Koret, chair and wife of foundation founder Joseph Koret, filed suit against the Koret Foundation and six of the seven other board members, seeking their removal. On behalf of the foundation and its directors, we sought Ms. Koret’s removal as a director by way of a cross-complaint. A San Francisco Superior Court trial resulted in a tentative ruling rejecting Ms. Koret’s claims and granting the Foundation’s request that Ms. Koret be removed, and the parties settled the dispute on terms favorable to the Foundation.

We helped Lam Research Corp. bring and successfully resolve a trade secrets misappropriation and breach of contract claim against two employees who departed for their lead competitor, taking with them Lam’s confidential information relating to its R&D prototyping program. Within three months of filing suit, we obtained the return of all stolen materials and a preliminary injunction preventing future use of Lam’s information and trade secrets.

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 at trial, 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 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 won summary judgment of invalidity under Alice on all five asserted patents, which the Federal Circuit affirmed summarily.

We served as lead counsel for Comcast in an eight-patent case brought by British Telecom in Delaware federal court. The case targeted Comcast's high speed data and telephony services and video encryption. We also asserted Comcast patents against British Telecom in Texas federal court. In Delaware, we prevailed on six of the eight patents by way of summary judgment and stipulated dismissals, and thereafter reached a very favorable resolution of both litigations.

We defended Comcast in the District of Delaware against eight patents asserted by British Telecom. The case targeted Comcast’s high-speed data and telephony services and video encryption. We also counter-asserted Comcast patents against British Telecom in the Northern District of Texas. In Delaware, we prevailed on six of the eight patents by way of summary judgment and stipulated dismissals, and thereafter reached a very favorable resolution of both litigations.