Edward Bayley

Tel. (415) 773-6672


UC Hastings College of the Law, J.D., magna cum laude, 2009

Santa Clara University, B.S. in computer science, 2004


Hon. Martin Jenkins
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, 2007 

Bar Admissions


Edward Bayley

Ed Bayley's practice benefits from his unique combination of law firm and software developer experience. He has significant experience handling intellectual property as well as complex commercial litigation and appellate matters.

Cases of Note

County of Santa Clara v. Trump et al.: 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.

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.

Susan Koret v. The Koret Foundation Board of Directors: We represented the Koret Foundation and all of its directors other than Susan Koret in litigation brought by Ms. Koret. Ms. Koret sought to seize control of the Foundation by seeking the removal of the other members of the board of directors. On behalf of the Foundation and its directors, we sought Ms. Koret’s removal by way of cross-complaint. Following a trial which resulted in a tentative ruling rejecting Ms. Koret’s claims and granting the Foundation’s request that Ms. Koret be removed, the parties settled the dispute on terms favorable to the Foundation.

Lam Research Corporation v. Former Employees: 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.

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 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.

British Telecommunications v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC: 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.

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.

Awards and Honors

University of California, Hastings College of the Law

  • Order of the Coif
  • Thurston Society Member
  • Hastings Law Journal, Senior Production Editor: 2008-2009; Editor: 2007-2008
  • CALI Awards, Top Student: Evidence, Intellectual Property, Federal Courts, IP Concentration Legal Research and Writing,

Santa Clara University

  • Phi Beta Kappa
  • Dean’s List 2001-2004
  • Dean’s Scholarship in College of Arts and Sciences
Developed by Tenrec