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.
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.
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
Keker Attorneys Help Get Key Victory in a Fight Over Immigration, Federal Funding Read more
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
The jury accepted Google’s “fair use” defense in the copyright case, zeroing out Oracle’s billion dollar claim. Read more
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
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
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