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 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 $200 million, plus additional enhancements for punitive damages. The jury found that Fortinet was not liable on Alorica’s claims of fraud and breach of warranty. KVP was retained a few months before the trial date, and in short order the defense team obtained several favorable pretrial rulings. Prior to the jury verdict, the KVP team also obtained directed verdicts on punitive damages and plaintiff’s largest claim for compensatory damages.

We defended EDA company Real Intent at trial in San Jose federal court against Synopsys’s copyright infringement claims related to the design and verification of integrated circuits. Synopsys also alleged that Real Intent breached several contractual agreements between the two companies by copying certain commands from Synopsys's software. The KVP team won a sweeping fair use victory on the copyright infringement claims at summary judgment, while the contract claim remained in the case at trial. The jury awarded Synopsys a tiny fraction of the millions of dollars Synopsys sought, and the Court further reduced the verdict post-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 defended Gerard Williams, a celebrated chip designer, in a case brought by Apple claiming that he breached contractual agreements and misappropriated trade secrets when he founded Nuvia, Inc., a leading-edge microchip company ultimately acquired by Qualcomm. The case was successfully resolved before trial.

We defended Google against an AI-related patent infringement suit brought by Singular Computing that alleged Google’s TPU chips (custom-designed hardware used for training and inference of large AI models) infringed Singular’s patents. After Google successfully invalidated some of the patent claims through inter partes review, the KVP team led Google’s defense in a 2-week trial in Boston federal court on a narrowed set of claims. Shortly before closing arguments, Singular accepted a pending settlement offer.

OpenAI tapped Keker as lead trial counsel in a series of copyright lawsuits that will establish the boundaries of copyright fair use as applied to generative AI. The cases include claims brought by newspapers, authors, and other media outlets alleging that the training of Open AI's large language models infringe their works.

We successfully defended Google against putative class action claims that YouTube is rife with copyright infringement and encourages the piracy of uploaded videos by removing copyright management information. The plaintiff, Maria Schneider, was an American composer and jazz orchestra leader, and the class challenged YouTube’s right to immunity under the safe harbor of the DMCA. We were hired three months before the case’s June 2023 trial date. After Judge Donato denied class certification, the KVP team prevailed in two very successful pretrial hearings, which dramatically limited the plaintiffs’ case, excluded their liability expert, and preserved strong licensing defenses for YouTube. The case was successfully resolved soon after.

We successfully represented Google in an arbitration against former employees Anthony Levandowski and Lior Ron, obtaining a ruling that they breached their duties and employment agreements in connection with their founding of a competing self-driving car business while working at Google. Their competing business, Otto, was sold to Uber for a reported price of $680 million. Following a two-week arbitration hearing, a three-judge panel awarded Google a $179 million judgment that was later confirmed by the San Francisco Superior Court.

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 Arista Networks in this groundbreaking case which raised the important question of whether and to what extent functional computer commands merit copyright protection. Cisco accused Arista, run by a former Cisco vice president, of copyright infringement for the use of more than 500 commands used to configure network switches. Cisco also accused Arista of infringing two patents, one of which it dismissed before trial. After a two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in our client’s favor on both the copyright and patent claims.

We defended Google against a series of patent cases alleging that Google’s network protocol infringes Jenam’s patents. A three-judge Federal Circuit panel ordered the district court to transfer the case out of the Western District of Texas, ruling that the court abused its discretion by denying Google’s motion to move the case to California. Following the transfer to San Francisco federal court, the firm achieved a stay of all district court proceedings pending inter partes review proceedings before the PTAB. Google successfully invalidated three Jenam patents and the case subsequently settled.

We defended data storage innovator Pure Storage Inc. in multi-patent litigation filed by its Fortune 500 rival EMC Corporation in the District of Delaware. EMC’s asserted patents related to various data storage technologies, including technology for deduplicating data. We prevailed on two of the five patents in suit prior to trial, and obtained a jury verdict of non-infringement as to two others following a seven-day jury trial. We then won partial judgment as a matter of law and a new trial on invalidity as to EMC’s one remaining asserted patent. Shortly following the court’s order granting a new trial, Pure Storage and EMC reached a global settlement.

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.

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 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 various Honda entities in a multi-forum federal and state litigation involving an alleged conspiracy among automakers to restrict the gray-market export of new cars from Canada to the United States. A class was initially certified in the lead federal multi-district case, but we successfully persuaded the First Circuit to vacate the certification and impose a stringent standard barring the certification of a class with uninjured members. The federal court then granted summary judgment in defendants’ favor, ruling that plaintiffs could not prove that the alleged conspiracy caused harm to the entire class. After that, the focus shifted to the consolidated California state case, where we won summary judgment on the merits, persuading the court that there were no facts that could support a conclusion that either Honda entity had conspired with any other defendant.

We represented Impax Laboratories, Inc. against Abbott and the French pharmaceutical company Fournier in a plaintiff-side antitrust case that alleged monopolization in a drug market. We led the trial presentation for all of the plaintiffs, and secured a settlement for Impax midway through the trial.

We defended a leading Internet search engine in a high-stakes binding arbitration. The founders of a company acquired by our client alleged our client breached the merger agreement, and sought hundreds of millions in earn-out compensation. A three-judge panel found in favor of our client on all counts.

We represented limited partnership owners of the Oakland Raiders in a breach of fiduciary duty action against the team's general partner, Al Davis. The suit sought to confirm our client's partnership rights and prevent the diminishment of its partnership share. The case was settled before trial on favorable terms for our client.

We represented various Honda entities in a multi-forum federal and state litigation involving an alleged conspiracy among automakers to restrict the gray-market export of new cars from Canada to the United States. A class was initially certified in the lead federal multi-district case, but we successfully persuaded the First Circuit to vacate the certification and impose a stringent standard barring the certification of a class with uninjured members. The federal court then granted summary judgment in defendants’ favor, ruling that plaintiffs could not prove that the alleged conspiracy caused harm to the entire class. After that, the focus shifted to the consolidated California state case, where we won summary judgment on the merits, persuading the court that there were no facts that could support a conclusion that either Honda entity had conspired with any other defendant.

We secured a favorable settlement for Electronic Arts Inc. (EA) in this groundbreaking antitrust and right of publicity class action. Current and former student-athletes claimed EA improperly used the athletes’ likenesses and biographical information in its NCAA Football and NCAA Basketball video games.

We represented and advised Southern Wine & Spirits of America, Inc., the country's largest wine and spirits wholesalers, in various matters; most recently in connection with the violation of a non-compete agreement by a senior executive who left to join the company’s primary competitor.

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 convinced a federal judge to dismiss a breach of contract suit that alleged the University of California, Los Angeles violated the copyrights of educational-video makers when it implemented a system for streaming videos online to students and faculty. The suit, the first of its kind in the nation, asserted federal causes of action for copyright infringement and unlawful circumvention under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, as well as state law claims for breach of contract, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, interference with contract, and interference with prospective business advantage.

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.

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.

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.

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 defended Arista Networks in this groundbreaking case which raised the important question of whether and to what extent functional computer commands merit copyright protection. Cisco accused Arista, run by a former Cisco vice president, of copyright infringement for the use of more than 500 commands used to configure network switches. Cisco also accused Arista of infringing two patents, one of which it dismissed before trial. After a two-week trial, the jury returned a verdict in our client’s favor on both the copyright and patent claims.