Leo L. Lam

Partner

Leo Lam litigates complex intellectual property and commercial disputes that often center on technology. He has handled more than 100 patent cases, in addition to trade secrets, copyright, trademark, and general commercial matters.

Regardless of the area of technology or law, Leo drills down on results-oriented strategies for every client. He has worked with myriad technologies and industries in complex and highly technical cases, from networking and telecommunications to semiconductors to medical devices. He has appeared in jurisdictions nationwide for a long list of clients, including Comcast, Dexcom, Fortinet, Google, Netflix, OpenAI, Sandisk, TSMC, Varian Medical Systems, and Zscaler. Leo also has professional experience as a former electrical engineer and is registered to practice before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office.

Recently, he secured a complete defense verdict from a Silicon Valley jury and attorneys’ fees and costs in a fraud dispute involving cybersecurity and networking products in which plaintiffs sought hundreds of millions of dollars in damages. He also defended Google’s Nest thermostat products against patent claims in the Western District of Texas, defeating most of the claims. An appeal of a damages finding on a remaining patent led to one of the most significant patent rulings of 2025 with the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals siding with Google after a rare en banc review.

Leo has a substantial and successful track record. Representing Comcast, he obtained dismissal of numerous patent, contract, and tort claims tied to an 11-figure damages demand in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Defending Zscaler, he helped secure a favorable cost-of-defense settlement covering sprawling litigations involving 14 asserted patents. For Sandisk, Leo helped defeat dozens of asserted patents across multiple forums, including a complete defense verdict in the District of Delaware and summary judgment in the Northern District of California, driving a favorable global settlement as appeals were pending.

Leo’s pro bono practice includes voting rights and immigration/asylum matters. He serves on the firm’s Compensation Committee, Diversity Equity & Inclusion Committee, and Diversity Scholars Committee.

Cases of Note

  • Alorica, Inc. v. Fortinet, Inc.

    We represented secure networking company Fortinet, winning a complete defense verdict after a four-week jury trial in Santa Clara Superior Court where plaintiff Alorica sought compensatory damages of more than…

  • Abbott Diabetes Care v. Dexcom

    We defended Dexcom in the District of Delaware where Abbott asserted a dozen patents targeting Dexcom’s G6 continuous glucose monitoring technology. The Keker team narrowed the case to four patents…

  • CEDC v. Bessent

    We represent taxpayer and immigrant advocates in filing suit against the government to halt ICE from accessing protected taxpayer data. The court issued a preliminary injunction prohibiting ICE and DHS…

  • 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…

  • 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…

  • 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…

  • 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 Corporation v. Ivantis, Inc.

    We defended Ivantis, Inc., the maker of a revolutionary eye stent designed to treat glaucoma, in a case brought by competitor Glaukos Corporation in the Central District of California alleging…

  • Summit 6 LLC v. Twitter, Inc.

    We represented Twitter in a patent-infringement suit brought by Summit 6 LLC in the Northern District of Texas. In prior cases in the same court, Summit 6 had obtained large…

  • 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…

  • 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…

  • 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…

  • 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…

  • 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,…

  • 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…

  • 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…

  • 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…

  • 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…

  • 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…

  • 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…

  • 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,…

  • 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…

  • 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…

  • 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…

  • 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,…

News & Events