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 prior to trial, including by invalidating an Abbott patent at summary judgment, and excluded Abbott’s expert testimony regarding reasonable royalty damages. Following a two-week trial, the jury invalidated another Abbott patent and found two were not infringed. The Court also declined to let the jury consider damages on the remaining patent, cementing a defense victory for the Keker trial team.

We represented Google in defeating a patent infringement suit brought by B.E. Technology over targeted advertising technologies. After multiple claims were invalidated through inter partes review proceedings, the Delaware court then granted summary judgment on the final remaining claim, holding it invalid under Section 101 of the Patent Act as directed to an abstract idea that lacked any inventive concept. The ruling resolved the case in full just weeks before trial.

We defended Qualcomm at trial against the FTC’s claims that it had failed to license its standard-essential patents at fair, reasonable and nondiscriminatory royalty rates and that Qualcomm had engaged in exclusionary conduct that increased its competitors’ costs and reduced their ability to innovate. We won an appeal before the Ninth Circuit that reversed and vacated the district court’s injunction.

We defended Qualcomm against antitrust claims made by a putative class of 250 million cellphone users (one of the largest class actions ever) alleging that Qualcomm had inflated mobile device prices through its standard-essential patent licensing practices. The Ninth Circuit granted a petition for interlocutory review of the court’s class certification order, and ultimately overturned certification, ruling that the district court erred in its choice of law analysis and found that differences in state antitrust laws preclude the uniform application of California’s Cartwright Act to antitrust actions filed by consumers nationwide. On remand, we eliminated the remaining claims via subsequent motions to dismiss and summary judgment, resulting in a complete victory for Qualcomm.

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, it acquired Sun’s rights to Java. In August 2010, 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. 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. In March 2018, the Federal Circuit reversed the district court, rejected the jury’s verdict, and held that Google’s use was not a fair use as a matter of law. In a sweeping victory for Google and our trial team, the U.S. Supreme Court reversed the Federal Circuit and ruled that Google’s use of the programming language in its Android operating system is fair use.

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.