Contract & Commercial,
Gene Paige focuses his practice on complex civil litigation. He successfully defends clients from infringement claims, and prosecutes cases on behalf of innovators who have had the fruits of their labor misappropriated. Mr. Paige has tried more than a dozen criminal and civil cases in state and federal courts, serving as first chair in the majority of those cases.
He has litigated cases that involve cutting-edge technology such as semiconductor fabrication process technology, the co-expression of recombinant DNA, and the use of innovative methods of conducting business online. He enjoys learning about diverse subject matter areas and industries, and then constructing a winning strategy that will serve both the client’s legal needs and its business objectives.
We represented Qualcomm in an ITC investigation in which Nvidia asserted infringement of seven patents that purportedly cover graphics processing units (GPUs). Nvidia sought to block the importation of Samsung Galaxy phones and tablets that contain Qualcomm’s Adreno technology, as well as those containing chips from ARM Holdings and Imagination Technologies. Nvidia abandoned its claims of infringement as to three of the patents prior to the hearing before the ALJ, and dropped its claims as to a fourth patent during the course of the hearing. Following the hearing, the ALJ determined that no violation of section 337 had been established, because of the patents remaining in the investigation, two had not been infringed, and the third had been infringed but was invalid. In December of 2015, the full International Trade Commission declined to review the ALJ’s initial determination of no violation of section 337, resulting in a complete victory for our client Qualcomm in the ITC. Nvidia filed and then dismissed an appeal to the Federal Circuit, cementing the win for Qualcomm.
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.
We defended Veeva Systems from patent infringement allegations brought by its competitor in the Northern District of California. The patents relate to the creation of email messages using multiple layers and/or content available on servers. We successfully narrowed the scope of the case from five patents to two, and further narrowed the case when the court agreed one of the claims was invalid. After that, we secured a very successful settlement for a fraction of the original demand.
We defended HTC in a five-patent investigation brought by Kodak before the International Trade Commission. The action accused dozens of mobile devices of infringing digital imaging patents that covered a range of technologies, including image capture, processing, display, compression and transmission. Consistent with ITC practice, our defense took place on a fast schedule, with a hearing date that was set approximately one year from the start of the investigation and fact discovery being completed in approximately six months. Just prior to the scheduled hearing date, the case was resolved when the Kodak patent portfolio was sold.
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.
We prosecuted a patent infringement case on behalf of a leading Internet subscription service. Our client claimed its once larger rival infringed on our client's unique business method. The competitor countersued, alleging antitrust violations. The case was dismissed before trial.
We helped an Am Law 100 law firm obtain payment for legal services in connection with a successful infringement lawsuit against a rival company. After obtaining a multi-million dollar writ of attachment, the case was settled following arbitration.
We defended Genentech's groundbreaking patent on recombinant antibody technology against an invalidity challenge by MedImmune. The argument before the court concerned a licensee’s ability to challenge the validity of a patent while still paying royalties for the technology. The case was dismissed before trial, without the requested finding that the Cabilly II patent was invalid.
We defended a leading national bank against allegations that its speech-enabled customer service system infringed on four patents. The case was favorably settled following a Markman hearing.
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.
We represented TSMC against China's then-leading semiconductor manufacturer, SMIC, in the largest trade secret misuse case tried to date. SMIC owed its very existence to technology stolen from our client. Following a jury verdict on liability in favor of TSMC, SMIC agreed to pay $200 million in cash and approximately $130 million of its company stock. The case serves as precedent for the strong protection afforded by California's trade secret statute, even where the actual theft occurred in Asia.
We represented online file-sharing company investors against allegations of copyright infringement, and asserted counterclaims of antitrust violations. After we used crime fraud arguments to pierce the plaintiff's attorney-client privilege, the case settled on favorable terms.
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
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
The jury accepted Google’s “fair use” defense in the copyright case, zeroing out Oracle’s billion dollar claim. 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
Gene Paige speaks to Law360 about the impact of laches on patent litigation. Read more
Gene Paige will provide an overview of the decision, and its potential impact on pending and future IPR proceedings 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
The awards recognize California litigation practices that delivered exceptional results on their clients' most critical and challenging matters. Read more
The ITC cleared Samsung and Qualcomm of violating a pair of Nvidia graphics patents in a case that could have barred certain Samsung products from the U.S. market, upholding an administrative law judge's decision and ending its investigation of the Korean smartphone giant. Read more
Gene Paige will present "Comparative Patent Litigation: Germany versus the United States." Read more
Robert Van Nest and his team score an important victory in the ITC, winning on all three patents. Read more
Gene Paige provides ten things that companies considering engaging in patent litigation outside of the United States should consider before taking action. Read more
Gene Paige, Christa Anderson and their KVN team convinced a federal judge to invalidate patents as indefinite because they do not provide information about what falls outside the claims. Read more
Gene Paige analyzes whether patent law may limit academic freedom in the June issue of Intellectual Property Today magazine. 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
The Supreme Court ruled that the Federal Circuit's standards for awarding attorneys' fees to prevailing parties in "unreasonable" patent infringement cases must be eased. 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
Gene Paige will present at the 13th Annual Silicon Valley Advanced Patent Law Institute. Read more
Gene Paige and Christa Anderson are part of the conference's distinguished faculty of the foremost patent attorneys and in-house counsel. 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
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 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
Elliot Peters and Gene Paige defended a company from trade secret and copyright charges. Read more