Matthias Kamber focuses on intellectual property matters including patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade secrets. He has tried approximately 10 jury and bench trials, including numerous high-stakes patent matters, and has also handled antitrust and commercial litigation.
Leveraging his mechanical engineering degree, Mr. Kamber has handled patent cases involving Internet advertising and telephony, smartphones, and microprocessors throughout the country and before the U.S. International Trade Commission. Regardless of the type of case or technology, he focuses on identifying key issues early, setting a targeted legal strategy, and balancing corporate objectives. This approach has resulted in favorable pre-trial dispositions, successful negotiated resolutions, and victories at trial. It has also earned him various public recognitions listed below.
Mr. Kamber currently serves as a vice-chair of the Amicus Committee for the Federal Circuit Bar Association. He previously served as co-chair of the Veterans Pro Bono Committee, and has represented veterans in pro bono appeals to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims. From 2015-2018, Mr. Kamber also served on the Advisory Council of the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Suffolk Technologies LLC v. AOL Inc. and Google Inc.
A Virginia federal judge granted our motion for summary judgment on all but one of Suffolk’s patent infringement claims, and issued a Daubert ruling striking the plaintiff’s expert damages opinion in its entirety. Soon after, Suffolk stipulated to invalidity on the last remaining claim. Suffolk had claimed that Google’s Adsense advertising placement technology, which selectively places paid advertisements for a company’s product or service on the Web page of another, used a similar protocol to the one under patent with Suffolk.
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.
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.
Broadcom Corporation, et al. v. Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
On behalf of Broadcom, we led a joint-defense group of wireless chip manufacturers, PC manufacturers, and cellular network carriers. The plaintiff, CSIRO, asserted patent claims that allegedly covered a wide variety of products that offer wireless functionality under the IEEE 802.11 standard for local area networks. We settled the case favorably on the eve of trial.
Caritas Technologies v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit upheld our successful defense of a $2.2 billion patent infringement claim against Comcast Cable Communications, LLC. The plaintiff had asserted that Comcast’s Digital Voice service infringed on its patents for Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology. We obtained a non-infringement judgment in the Eastern District of Texas, which was sustained on appeal.
Plaintiff v. Bioscience Company
We defended a bioscience company against claims that it breached a licensing agreement, and fought a motion for a preliminary injunction. The case was resolved via early evaluation and negotiation.
Plaintiff v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.
Impax Laboratories, Inc. asked us to take over a false advertising case regarding the company's generic drug that had been litigated for two years. Within several months we took 20 depositions, secured five expert reports, and settled the case on very favorable terms for our client.
Plaintiff v. Internet Search Engine
We represented a leading Internet search engine and its subsidiary against claims of unfair competition, dilution and various tort claims. The case involved novel issues of online trademark and domain-name law. After we successfully moved to dismiss various claims made by the plaintiff, the case was settled.
Rembrandt Technologies, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC
We defended Comcast in a nine-patent case involving high-speed Internet and digital TV services. Rembrandt originally filed the case in the Eastern District of Texas, but in conjunction with other co-defendants, we obtained multi-district consolidation and transfer to the District of Delaware. Based upon claim construction rulings, Rembrandt conceded non-infringement of eight of the nine patents, preserving only its right to appeal the claim construction as to the ninth. The Federal Circuit then upheld the claim construction on that last patent, resulting in non-infringement. We also helped Comcast secure an exceptional-case determination and a resulting award of over $10 million in fees and costs.
Discover v. Visa USA, Inc.
We defended Visa USA, Inc. in one of the largest private civil antitrust matters in U.S. history. Discover sued MasterCard and Visa for alleged antitrust violations, claiming that credit card network rules affected member banks’ ability to issue American Express and Discover cards. The case settled on the eve of trial for billions less than Discover claimed. We also defended Visa in a similar action brought by American Express.
Multinational Biotechnology Company v. Biopharmaceutical Company
We won partial summary judgment for a Seattle biopharmaceutical company and its founder in a trade secret and contract action over a cystic fibrosis drug. Aided by that ruling, and the favorable progress of the trial relating to the remaining claims, another biotechnology company acquired our client for $365 million mid-trial.
December 21, 2017
In a blockbuster year defined by complex cases, Keker, Van Nest & Peters’ intellectual property practice kept its approach surprisingly simple, crafting a litigation strategy that emphasized a strong narrative and a diverse team capable of telling it. 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
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 17, 2017
The jury accepted Google’s “fair use” defense in the copyright case, zeroing out Oracle’s billion dollar claim. 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
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
Chief Judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit Sharon Prost and her former clerk, Keker & Van Nest Partner Matthias Kamber, discuss the scrutiny the court has been getting from the U.S. Supreme Court. Read more
Matthias Kamber will present "Joint/Divided Infringement" at the 15th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute. Read more
Matthias Kamber and Matan Shacham will present to the Bar Association of San Francisco's Barristers Club. 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
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
March 17-18, 2014
Matthias Kamber will be a featured speaker at this annual institute, designed to be of ultimate practice value to all three subgroups in the patent law community: patent prosecutors, patent litigators, and strategic/transactional lawyers. Read more
Matthias Kamber will address this critical topic at the 2013 Litigating Patent Disputes Conference. Read more
Matthias Kamber comments on a hot-button issue in patent litigation - how much latitude federal district judges should have to award attorneys fees to the prevailing party. Read more
Matthias Kamber explains how recent White House executive actions and proposals targeting frivolous litigation are efforts to treat the symptoms of a broken system rather than cure it. Read more
Law360 honored attorneys under the age of 40 whose accomplishments in major litigation belie their age. Read more
Ashok Ramani, Asim Bhansali and Matthias Kamber will speak at this conference, which brings together a distinguished faculty of the foremost patent attorneys, judges, and in-house counsel in the country. Read more
Christa Anderson offers her insights into how Keker & Van Nest defeated Oracle Corp.'s $6 billion copyright and patent case on behalf of Google. Read more
Keker & Van Nest wins a complete victory in patent infringement case. Read more
The firm receives top rankings for bet-the-company, intellectual property, criminal defense, securities, commercial, legal malpractice, and appellate litigation. Read more
Matthias Kamber comments on the value of patents in the smartphone industry. Read more
Matthias Kamber provides insights on the copyrightability of APIs. Read more
Keker & Van Nest bested Oracle's legal team, who were unable to secure any significant wins during the multiphase five-week trial. Read more
Partial verdict in Oracle-Google case seen as setback for Oracle. Read more
Keker & Van Nest partners were recognized in more than ten categories, including bet-the-company litigation, criminal defense, and intellectual property litigation. Read more
Mr. Kamber wins the Committee Individual Leadership Award. Read more
- "2016 Rulings Shed Light on Software Patent Eligibility Standards," BNA's Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, 2017, co-authored with Matthew Werdegar.
- "Brexit Will Impact Planned Unified Patent Court,” The National Law Journal, 2017
- "Parallel Infringement and Invalidity Proceedings Before the UPC," Intellectual Property Magazine, 2016
- "National and International Patent Law: U.S., Europe, China and Beyond," Patent Disputes for Corporate Counsel Forum, 2015
- "Key Developments in Patent Law," Bar Association of San Francisco, 2015
- "Joint/Divided Infringement," 15th Annual Advanced Patent Law Institute, 2014
- "Key Developments in Patent Law," Bar Association of San Francisco, 2014
- "Developments in Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation," Practising Law Institute, 8th Annual Patent Law Institute, 2014
- "Best Practices for Litigating & Managing Disputes Under AIA," The Daily Journal/Thomson Reuters Litigating Patent Disputes Conference, 2013
- "Finding the Best Cure," Intellectual Property Magazine, 2013. Mr. Kamber's article explains how recent White House executive actions and proposals targeting frivolous litigation are efforts to treat the symptoms of a broken system rather than cure it.