Sharif E. Jacob has successfully tried patent, commercial, and civil rights actions. He focuses on intellectual property litigation, complex business disputes, and the representation of individuals. Mr. Jacob formerly served as an Adjunct Professor at the University of California, Hastings College of the Law.
Mr. Jacob has extensive experience with patent litigation. He represents leading firms in the video streaming, social networking, and wireless phone industries in disputes pending before the district courts, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the International Trade Commission, and the Patent and Trademark Office.
Mr. Jacob has repeatedly litigated actions advancing the constitutional rights of inmates. He has won judgments and appeals for prisoners locked in solitary confinement and brutalized in prison. His pro bono work led to systemic reform of California’s prison system and has been covered by the national press.
Mr. Jacob graduated first in his class from Hastings and received his undergraduate degree from Yale University. After law school, Mr. Jacob clerked for the Honorable Mary M. Schroeder of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.
In the Matter of Certain Point-to-Point Network Communication Devices
Straight Path filed suit at the ITC under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, accusing Toshiba, LG, Vizio, Sony, and others of importing devices that infringe three Straight Path patents covering network-communication technology. We represented Netflix, whose technology had been accused, throughout the action. Weeks before trial, Toshiba retained us to try the matter. Shortly thereafter, Straight Path abandoned the investigation by unilaterally withdrawing its complaint.
United States ex rel. Landis v. Tailwind Sports, et al.
We represented Tour de France winner Lance Armstrong in settling a False Claims Act case brought by a former teammate and joined in by the United States. The Postal Service and Floyd Landis had sought $100 million in damages from Armstrong, but in light of several significant court rulings rejecting and limiting the plaintiffs’ damages theories, the case settled for $5 million. Our prior representation of Armstrong resulted in the closing of a federal criminal investigation without charges being filed.
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.
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.
evYsio Medical Devices v. Advanced Cardiovascular Systems
We represented evYsio Medical Devices in asserting patents for its cardiac stent technology. Prior to jury selection, the case became part of a global settlement between Medtronic and Abbott. Our client, the inventor of several stents in the suit, received $42 million as part of the settlement.
M&H Realty Partners v. Aerojet-General Corporation
We represented M&H Realty Partners in a multi-million dollar breach of indemnification agreement and tort action against Aerojet and Boeing. The case concerned environmental contamination in Fullerton, California.
Henderson v. Petersen et al
We represented a prisoner in a civil rights suit against three correctional officers who beat him in Pelican Bay State Prison and one officer who failed to intervene to stop the beating. After the plaintiff's case survived summary judgment, the federal court asked us to step in and represent him at trial. Following a five-day trial and five hours of jury deliberation, the defendants settled the case for nearly twice the number the plaintiff presented to the jury.
April 19, 2018
Lance Armstrong agreed on Thursday to pay $5 million to settle claims that he defrauded the federal government by using performance-enhancing drugs when the United States Postal Service sponsored his cycling team. Read more
April 19, 2018
Lance Armstrong today announced that he has settled the long-running False Claims Act case brought against him by former cyclist Floyd Landis and the U. S. Postal Service. Read more
April 19, 2018
Five years after then-U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder announced that the U.S. Justice Department would co-sign onto Floyd Landis’s whistleblower lawsuit against Lance Armstrong, the sides have reached a settlement. Read more
July 11, 2017
Keker, Van Nest & Peters has filed an amicus brief asking the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit to order the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs to end its ban on providing surgery for trans veterans. Read more
TiVo’s “TV Guide” patents are DOA at appeals court. Read more
Sharif Jacob will help practitioners, advocates, prisoners and family members understand the current trends and challenges in helping long-term prisoners transform their lives and navigate California's parole consideration process. Read more
The California parole board agreed more than two years ago to tell all life prisoners, at their first hearing, the appropriate sentence for their crime, but inmates’ lawyers who negotiated the settlement says the board has violated its pledge more than 1,600 times. Read more
Sharif Jacob will present "Non-Practicing Entities: What's the Big Deal?" Read more
Ashok Ramani and his team won summary judgment of invalidity on all five patents. Read more
We are pleased to announce the elevation of Simona Agnolucci, Sharif Jacob and Khari Tillery to partner. Read more
A federal judge refused to force Netflix Inc. to comply with Straight Path IP Group's “oppressive” subpoena demanding depositions, source code and more for its patent suits, finding Tuesday that Netflix is a nonparty in the cases and Straight Path may face sanctions. Read more
The client whose case has shaped California's parole system is released. Read more
Keker & Van Nest team called for a change to the ITC rules that would enable the agency to punish companies abandoning patent infringement cases at the last minute. Read more
The settlement gives inmates an incentive to work toward parole eligibility, eases California's financial strain and prison overcrowding crisis. 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
The multi-patent case involved novel arguments which tested the ITC's definition of “unfair foreign competition.” Read more
As lead counsel for HTC, we helped our client reach a global settlement that includes the dismissal of all current lawsuits and a 10-year license agreement. Read more
Asim Bhansali and Sharif Jacob will lead this webinar brand and generic drug companies' in-house counsel. Read more
This book serves as a single-source guide examining the intersection between the statutory and regulatory scheme governing approval of generic pharmaceuticals and U.S. patent law in the context of Paragraph IV ANDA litigation. Read more
Adam Laurisden and Sharif Jacob win $22,500 settlement for pro bono client in Pelican Bay excessive force case. Read more
Laurie Mims will moderate this panel, which features Sharif Jacob and other young practitioners. Read more
- Co-author with Andrea Nill Sanchez, "Prop 57 Fails to Address Set of Inmates," The Daily Journal, 2017
- Co-author with Andrea Nill Sanchez, "Parole Board is Behind on Base-Term Calculations," The Daily Journal, 2016
- Co-author with Asim M. Bhansali and Benedict Y. Hur, Chapter 16 of ANDA Litigation: Strategies and Tactics for Pharmaceutical Patent Litigators, 2d ed, 2016
- Presenter, "Non-Practicing Entities: What's the Big Deal?" Practising Law Institute's (PLI) 10th Annual Patent Law Institute, 2016
- Co-author, "State Antitrust Law and Intellectual Property," Chapter 12 of California Antitrust and Unfair Competition Law, Revised Edition, 2014
- Presenter, "Antitrust Issues Stemming From Abbreviated New Drug Application (ANDA) Disputes," Bloomberg, 2012
- Co-author, Chapter 13 of ANDA Litigation: Strategies and Tactics for Pharmaceutical Patent Litigators, American Bar Association, 2012
- Co-author, "Antitrust Issues that Arise in ANDA Disputes," Bloomberg BNA Pharmaceutical Law & Industry Report, 2012
- Co-author, "U.S. Supreme Court Decisions on Criminal Law and Related Topics, October 2005-2006 Term," The State of Criminal Justice, 2006, 2007
- "Deficits in Language Mediated Operations in Patients with Schizophrenia," 53(3) Schizophrenia Research, 2002