Ed Bayley leverages his experience as a former software developer to represent tech companies in complex intellectual property and patent litigation matters. He has served as a member of several trial teams representing plaintiffs and defendants in high–stakes patent litigation, competitor cases, non–practicing entity assertions, and trade secret misappropriation disputes. He has experience litigating cases in many of the top patent venues throughout the United States, including the District Courts of California, Texas, and Delaware, and before the Federal Circuit. Ed’s clients have included Netflix, Google, Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Shanghai Moonton Technology, and 10x Genomics.
Ed is currently defending Netflix in a significant patent case brought by Broadcom, which is pending the Northern District of California and slated for trial in February 2024. His recent successes include representing Chinese video game developer Moonton in obtaining dismissal of a copyright and trademark suit on forum non conveniens grounds; and winning a declaratory judgment trial in Massachusetts state court that preserved 10X’s exclusive license to key biotech patents it had licensed from Harvard University.
Ed earned his J.D. from UC Hastings College of the Law, where he was Order of the Coif and served as Editor of the Hastings Law Journal. During law school, he served an extern to Judge Martin Jenkins of the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. He earned his B.S. in computer science from Santa Clara University. He has twice been named a “California Lawyer of the Year” by the Daily Journal.
Broadcom v. Netflix
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.
Jenam Tech v. Google
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.
Riot Games v. Shanghai Moonton Technology
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.
EcoFactor v. Google
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.
10X Genomics v. 1CellBio
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.
Cohen v. TSMC
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.
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
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.
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. British Telecommunications
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.
Keker, Van Nest & Peters is pleased to announce that the firm elevated former Of Counsel Ed Bayley to its partnership effective July 1, 2023. The firm has also welcomed as Of Counsel Sarah Salomon, who returned to Keker, Van Nest & Peters after serving as an impact litigation associate with Braunhagey & Borden. Read more
Representing Shanghai Moonton Technology Co., Ltd., Keker, Van Nest & Peters lawyers secured the dismissal of a copyright lawsuit filed by Riot Games, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California. Read more
April 05, 2021
In an intellectual property case watched by the tech community for more than a decade, the Supreme Court ruled 6 to 2 today that Google’s use of the programming language in its Android operating system is fair use. (Google v. Oracle, No. 18-956, U.S. Supreme Court). Read more
March 21, 2018
Keker Attorneys Help Get Key Victory in a Fight Over Immigration, Federal Funding Read more
November 21, 2017
A California federal judge on Monday permanently blocked the enforcement of an executive order issued by President Donald Trump in January that calls for withholding federal funds from so-called sanctuary cities, saying it violates various provisions of the U.S. Constitution. Read more
November 20, 2017
In a historic ruling issued today, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick declared unconstitutional the key provision of the Trump Administration’s Executive Order targeting “sanctuary jurisdictions,” and permanently enjoined its enforcement nationwide. Read more
July 24, 2017
A U.S. District Court has denied the federal government’s request to reconsider a preliminary injunction blocking President Donald Trump’s Executive Order defunding “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Read more
April 26, 2017
Keker, Van Nest & Peter's win blocking President Trump's Executive Order to defund "sanctuary jurisdictions" was featured in the Daily Journal Read more
The nationwide injunction to block Trump's executive order defunding sanctuary cities was a win for lawyers for Santa Clara County and their pro bono counsel at Keker Van
Nest & Peters. Read more
In a historic ruling issued today, U.S. District Court Judge William H. Orrick granted the County of Santa Clara’s request to temporarily enjoin President Trump and his administration from enforcing an Executive Order provision that would withdraw all federal funding from the County and jurisdictions across the country deemed “sanctuary jurisdictions.” Read more
Keker, Van Nest & Peter's win blocking Pres. Trump's Executive Order to defund "sanctuary jurisdictions" was featured in Alison Frankel's On The Case column for Reuters. Read more
During a recent hearing in which Keker, Van Nest & Peters represented Santa Clara County, Bloomberg news reported that Trump’s Executive Order Targeting Sanctuary Jurisdictions was met with skepticism from a federal judge. Read more
Eleven lawyers from two Keker, Van Nest & Peters trial teams representing Google and Arista received California Lawyer of the Year awards from the Daily Journal for intellectual property trial wins. Read more
February 17, 2017
The jury accepted Google’s “fair use” defense in the copyright case, zeroing out Oracle’s billion dollar claim. Read more
February 17, 2017
Bob Van Nest led two Keker, Van Nest & Peters trial teams on behalf of clients Google and Arista, respectively, that were recognized as top defense verdicts in California. Read more
February 09, 2017
In conjunction with the County of Santa Clara, KVP attorneys have sued the Trump Administration over the President’s Executive Order threatening to deny “sanctuary jurisdictions” federal funds. Read more
January 25, 2017
Trial wins for Google and Arista in high stakes patent and copyright cases led to Keker & Van Nest being named IP Group of the Year by Law360. Read more
TiVo’s “TV Guide” patents are DOA at appeals court. Read more
Google's lead attorney Robert Van Nest and his team won an epic victory in a courtroom battle between two Silicon Valley giants. Read more
Ashok Ramani and his team won summary judgment of invalidity on all five patents. Read more
The U.S. International Trade Commission affirmed an ITC judge's ruling that Keker & Van Nest's client Netflix Inc.'s streaming software didn't infringe digital entertainment technology company Rovi Corp.'s patented parental control and program guide technology. Read more
A Delaware federal judge dealt a blow to British Telecommunications PLC in a pair of suits claiming infringement of several of data networking patents it has licensed, tossing the corporation's contracts counterclaims against Cox Communications Inc. and Comcast Corp. Read more
The multi-patent case involved novel arguments which tested the ITC's definition of “unfair foreign competition.” Read more