Leo Lam focuses on IP litigation and has handled nearly 100 patent cases nationwide in myriad technologies ranging from networking and telecommunications to medical devices. Leo has a degree in electrical engineering and experience as a design engineer, and is also registered to practice before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. His clients have included Comcast, Dexcom, Fortinet, Google, Netflix, SanDisk (now Western Digital), TSMC, Varian Medical Systems, and Zscaler.
Leo also has substantial experience in trade secret, copyright, and trademark cases, as well as general complex civil litigation. Regardless of the type of technology or area of law involved, Leo provides result-oriented, bottom-line strategies to achieve the best possible outcome for each client, whether by means of trial, pretrial disposition, or negotiation and settlement.
For example, Leo recently defended Google and its Nest thermostat products in a patent case in the Western District of Texas, where our trial team secured a jury verdict of non-infringement on one patent and summary judgment invalidating another. As to a third patent, although the jury found infringement of a single claim, our team limited damages to a fraction of the plaintiff’s demand and eliminated running royalties.
Representing Comcast, Leo and our KVP team secured favorable rulings in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania that resulted in dismissal of numerous patent-, contract-, and tort-related claims for which the plaintiff made an 11-figure damages demand. Leo has also successfully defended tech companies such as Zscaler and SanDisk in sprawling litigations against scores of asserted patents. For Zscaler, Leo secured a favorable, cost-of-defense settlement after defending our client against 14 asserted patents and additional threatened assertions. In parallel litigations defending SanDisk against dozens of asserted patents, Leo and our trial team secured a complete defense verdict at a bellwether jury trial in the District of Delaware, and also won on summary judgment in the Northern District of California, leading to a favorable global settlement while the litigations were on appeal.
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.
Promptu v. Comcast Cable Communications
In the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, we successfully defended Comcast against patent infringement and state-law contract and tort claims brought by Promptu targeting Comcast’s voice recognition and control technology. Following a Markman hearing that resulted in favorable claim constructions across the board, we secured a stipulation of non-infringement and dismissal with prejudice of the remaining claims.
Abbott Diabetes Care v. Dexcom
We are defending successive generations of Dexcom products in parallel cases in the District of Delaware where Abbott is asserting over a dozen patents targeting Dexcom’s CGM (continuous glucose monitoring) technology for addressing diabetes. Trial in the first case is slated for November 2023.
AlmondNet v. FreeWheel Media
We are defending Comcast subsidiaries FreeWheel Media and Beeswax.io against infringement claims based on patents directed to targeted advertising brought by AlmondNet in the District of Delaware.
Best Medical International, Inc. v. Varian Medical Systems, Inc. et al.
We defended Varian Medical Systems, a world leader in radiotherapy medical devices for the treatment of cancer, in the District of Delaware against patent-infringement claims brought by Best Medical International.
Glaukos v. Ivantis
We represented Ivantis, Inc., the maker of a revolutionary eye stent designed to treat glaucoma, in a case brought by competitor Glaukos Corporation alleging infringement of two of Glaukos’s patents.
Symantec v. Zscaler
We represented Zscaler in parallel infringement suits brought by Symantec in the District of Delaware asserting 14 patents against Zscaler’s network-security platform. We succeeded in transferring both cases to the Northern District of California, invalidating several patents on motions to dismiss in District Court, and eliminating additional claims in proceedings before the Patent Office. As a result, we settled the remainder of the litigations very favorably before trial.
Summit 6 LLC v. Twitter, Inc.
We represented Twitter in a patent-infringement suit brought by Summit 6 LLC. In prior cases in the same court, Summit 6 had obtained large settlements and won an $18 million judgment against Samsung. Before the close of discovery, we secured a walk-away settlement for Twitter, with Twitter paying nothing.
Round Rock Research LLC v. SanDisk Corporation
We defended SanDisk from numerous patent assertions by Round Rock, including a total of 15 patents asserted in two separate litigations in the District of Delaware, and 12 patents asserted in another case in the Northern District of California. We prevailed in all adjudicated phases of the Delaware and California actions before the parties reached a broad settlement. In the California action, we secured final judgment in favor of SanDisk after obtaining a summary-judgment victory based on patent exhaustion. In the first Delaware phase, which culminated with a jury trial on two asserted patents, we obtained a defense verdict invalidating most asserted claims of both patents, and finding no infringement as to the other claims. In the next Delaware phase, a second jury trial was vacated after we obtained summary judgment invalidating claims from a third patent asserted by Round Rock. The other patents in the Delaware actions remained pending adjudication when the parties settled.
C-Cation Technologies v. Comcast Cable Communications, LLC, et al.
We represented Comcast in a patent infringement case brought by C-Cation Technologies in the Eastern District of Texas, and a related breach of contract claim Comcast brought in the Southern District of New York. The plaintiff targeted our clients' high speed data and telephony services and sought damages well into nine figures. We were selected as lead trial counsel for all defendants, which included three other cable companies. After several pre-trial victories, we reached a favorable settlement for all defendants.
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.
SoftView LLC v. Apple Inc. et al.
We successfully defended HTC in a lawsuit in the District of Delaware in which the plaintiff asserted patent claims that purported to cover web-browsing technology on mobile devices. We secured a complete dismissal after PTAB decisions holding all of the plaintiff’s asserted claims unpatentable, which the Federal Circuit affirmed.
Ziptronix v. Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company
We won summary judgment of non-infringement for Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company, Ltd. and its subsidiary TSMC, North America in a long-running patent lawsuit brought by North Carolina semiconductor company, Ziptronix, Inc. Ziptronix had asserted nine patents and more than 500 patent claims directed to TSMC’s manufacturing of semiconductors for use in backside-illumination image sensors used predominantly in smartphone cameras. On behalf of TSMC, we defeated Ziptronix’s claims by arguing that the territorial limits of U.S. patent law prohibited reaching TSMC’s business transactions and manufacturing operations in Taiwan.
Biax Corp. v. Motorola Mobility et al.
We represented Motorola Mobility and third-party Broadcom in a patent case targeting a key technology underlying a wide variety of semiconductor chips. The case settled favorably after summary judgment briefing.
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.
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.
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.
Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.
We represented Genentech, Inc. in a high-stakes patent trial. The plaintiff claimed our client's recombinantly engineered, “humanized” therapeutic for breast cancer infringed on the plaintiff's patent. We obtained a jury verdict invalidating the asserted patent on written description and enablement grounds. The verdict was later affirmed on appeal.
Plaintiff v. Semiconductor Company
On behalf of a Taiwan-based semiconductor company, we brought a declaratory judgment action in the Northern District of California to resolve patent claims that purported to target computer-mouse products relying on optical tracking. We settled the case favorably for our client.
Network Appliance v. BlueArc Corporation
We served as lead counsel for network storage newcomer BlueArc Corporation. We obtained summary judgment for BlueArc in this multi-patent case in the Northern District of California. The plaintiff, industry stalwart Network Appliance, asserted more than 50 patent claims concerning fileserver hardware and software, and sought an injunction which would have ended our client's business. The victory on summary judgment was upheld on appeal.
Broadcom Corporation v. SiRF Technology and CSR
We served as trial counsel for Broadcom, one of the world’s leading semiconductor companies, against SiRF, a GPS chip manufacturer, and its parent CSR. Broadcom asserted multiple patents covering graphics, video processing, and digital signal processing techniques, as well as claims arising under the Lanham Act and unfair competition laws. This case, along with other actions between the parties, was settled shortly before trial on terms that were very favorable to Broadcom.
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.
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.
Plaintiffs v. Telecommunications Company
In a patent infringement suit concerning video-conferencing systems, our client's competitor and its patent-holding arm sought an injunction and demanded damages against all products and services in our client’s core business. We settled the case favorably for our client after summary judgment briefing.
Harris Corporation v. DRAM Technology Users
On behalf of the Harris Corporation, we brought a series of patent-infringement actions to enforce a portfolio of patents covering various fundamental features of DRAM technology. The defendants included Hyundai, Siemens, Mosel-Vitelic, Atmel, Nanya, and others. We helped our client license more than 90% of the DRAM industry collectively for nine-figure royalties.
Litigators at Keker, Van Nest & Peters land runners-up honors in the case they’re handling for the PGA Tour involving antitrust claims brought by suspended golfers who have joined the professional golf tour’s upstart rivals at the LIV Golf Invitational Series. Read more
A federal judge in California ruled Tuesday that three golfers who joined Saudi-backed LIV Golf will not be able to compete in the PGA Tour’s postseason. Read more
In Commil USA LLC v. Cisco Systems Inc., the Supreme Court ruled a good faith belief that a patent is invalid is not a defense to induced infringement. Read more
A Delaware federal jury found that two patents held by patent holding company Round Rock Research LLC covering flash drives and memory cards were invalid, following an eight-day trial in a patent infringement case against SanDisk Corp. Read more
Ziptronix had asserted nine patents and more than 500 claims over TSMC’s manufacturing of semiconductors. Read more
Ashok Ramani, Leo Lam, Gene Paige and other distinguished faculty will share their experience and insight into critical patent litigation topics. 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
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
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
Keker & Van Nest partners were recognized in more than ten categories, including bet-the-company litigation, criminal defense, and intellectual property litigation. Read more
"Recent Developments Regarding Induced Infringement, Damages and Injunctive Relief," Daily Journal & Thomson Reuters Patent Disputes Forum, 2014