Lucasfilm • Electronic Arts Inc. • Google Inc. • Major League Baseball Players Association • Netflix
On appeal, as in trial, our attorneys display tactical sophistication and a penchant for getting to the point. At Keker, Van Nest & Peters, our briefs have a tone that is scholarly and credible, yet also pragmatic, incisive and never boring.
To be effective, appellate lawyers must:
Our lawyers - most of whom have clerked for federal judges - have honed these skills and deployed them successfully in appeals and writ proceedings spanning the entire field of complex litigation.
We defended our clients Netflix, Inc. and Roku Corporation in a U.S. International Trade Commission complaint filed by Rovi Corporation. The complaint accused our clients, along with Mitsubishi Electric Corp., LG Electronics Inc., and Vizio Inc., of infringing several patents related to interactive program guides. The complaint sought an order banning television and media-player makers from entering the U.S. By the time of the trial, the other defendants had settled and our clients faced four patents. We successfully defended our clients at trial, with the ALJ finding one of the patents invalid and none of the patents infringed, as well as no actionable importation or available remedy. The ITC confirmed there was no violation. Rovi then pursued the matter in District Court with three of the same patents used in the ITC investigation as well as two additional patents. We won summary judgment of invalidity under Alice on all five asserted patents, which the Federal Circuit affirmed summarily.
We defended Intuitive Surgical, Inc., a leading manufacturer of cutting-edge robotic surgery devices, from a securities class action. Plaintiffs alleged that Intuitive Surgical issued false and misleading statements regarding the company's financial results and prospects, when during the economic crisis of 2008, its financial results did not meet previously announced predictions. Plaintiffs’ lawyers filed a securities class action, which U.S. District Judge Lucy H. Koh dismissed with leave to amend. Then in a written opinion, Judge Koh agreed with each of our arguments, and dismissed the class action for the second time, this time with prejudice. Finally, the Ninth Circuit unanimously affirmed the dismissal in a 23-page published opinion.
The city of San Jose sued our client, Major League Baseball, alleging antitrust violations and various state law claims related to the Oakland Athletics possible relocation to San Jose. The lawsuit claimed that Major League Baseball and its commissioner violated state and federal laws regarding unfair business practices and anticompetitive conduct. It also challenged the exemption to antitrust laws that the U.S. Supreme Court first upheld for Major League Baseball in 1922. We successfully moved to dismiss plaintiffs’ antitrust claims, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed that ruling, and we convinced the Supreme Court of the United States to decline a petition for certiorari.
We successfully represented the Major League Baseball Players Association in its high-profile battle with the U.S. government. In August 2009, an en banc panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit ruled that federal investigators unlawfully seized drug-testing records of more than 100 athletes. In September 2010, the court issued a revised opinion that upheld its ruling.
We represented San Mateo County and its former treasurer against a $20 million suit brought by a group of San Mateo County school districts. Following the 2008 Lehman Brothers bankruptcy - in the midst of the nationwide financial crisis - plaintiffs filed suit against the County, alleging officials violated their fiduciary duties by investing too heavily in Lehman holdings. However we convinced a San Francisco Superior Court judge to dismiss the case on the grounds that the complaint failed to comply with state and county laws governing lawsuits against public entities.
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.
In the original case, a Lucasfilm employee filed a complaint for employment harassment and discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968. After Lucasfilm was granted summary judgment, the employee appealed to the Ninth Circuit. On behalf of Lucasfilm, we again secured summary judgment.
In this pro bono matter, we represented an individual in her suit against Universal Music Publishing, Inc. Universal issued a Digital Millennium Copyright Act take-down notice to YouTube regarding our client's video, which used 20 seconds of music from one of Universal's clients. We then sued Universal, arguing that a copyright holder must consider fair use before sending a takedown notice. The Ninth Circuit affirmed that a copyright holder must do so, and clarified that an aggrieved party may show the required intent by showing intentional conduct or willful blindness by the copyright holder.
On behalf of a real estate brokerage firm and several of its subsidiaries, we successfully moved to dismiss RICO claims relating to the valuation and sale of real estate, and successfully defended that victory before the Ninth Circuit, which upheld the dismissal without leave to amend in a published opinion.
We represented an Am Law 100 firm and one of its former partners in suits over the alleged mishandling of a patent application relating to electronic billboard technology. We won the complete dismissal of a state court action which was upheld by the California Court of Appeal. The plaintiff then filed a certiorari petition, however the U.S. Supreme Court denied it. We also secured the dismissal of four federal court claims, and won summary judgment on the remaining federal claim.
In a landmark decision that changed the rules for legal malpractice, we defended former law firm Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison LLP against legal malpractice allegations. We secured dismissal on summary judgment, which the California Supreme Court affirmed.
Brief supports Fourth Circuit appeal looking to overturn dismissal of claims challenging judiciary’s dispute resolution procedures Read more
A dissolved law firm has no property interest in the profits generated by its former shareholders’ work on hourly fee matters pending at the time of the firm’s dissolution. Read more
The California Supreme Court ruled this week that failed law firms are not entitled to fees earned on legal matters that are in progress – but not completed – at the time the firm closes its doors. Read more
Representing Davis Wright Tremaine LLP, Keker Van Nest & Peters secured a win before the California Supreme Court in a case that tested the reach of law firm dissolution agreements Read more
Longtime California trial staple Keker Van Nest & Peters LLP found success for a wide range of clients this year, winning a nationwide injunction against a presidential executive order, defending Arista Networks in a groundbreaking copyright suit and resolving a feud between two prominent San Francisco philanthropists. Read more
TiVo’s “TV Guide” patents are DOA at appeals court. Read more
Steve Hirsch earned the prestigious CLAY award by winning a federal court judgment in the Heller Ehrman bankruptcy that makes it easier for clients to hire lawyers and for lawyers to switch firms. Read more
One name mentioned by virtually everyone the Daily Journal spoke to was Keker & Van Nest. Lawyers at some of the best firms in California said they model themselves after the litigation powerhouse. Read more
Mr. Hirsch determined eight of 12 criticisms by Posner were “unwarranted,” but the remaining four had varying degrees of merit. Read more
Steve Hirsch will discuss how the appellant’s reply brief can be the most difficult but most effective argument you make. Read more
The Bar Association of San Francisco honored Steve Hirsch for his outstanding work as co-chair of BASF's Amicus Curiae Committee. Read more
Steve Hirsch discusses how to frame a question so as to negate his opponent's arguments. Read more
Steve Hirsch argued the online version of an age-old legal question — how to prove that a written communication was actually received and read by its intended target — at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Read more
The firm receives top rankings for bet-the-company, intellectual property, criminal defense, securities, commercial, legal malpractice, and appellate litigation. Read more
During this day-long seminar, Steven HIrsch and other notable faculty will examine the California appellate process by following a hypothetical case from filing of the complaint to review by the Court of Appeal, and petitioning the California Supreme Court for review. 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
“The decision marks a fitting end to this chapter of SEC enforcement — an enforcement program that went too far in my opinion,” Stuart Gasner told Law360.
Later this month, U.S. Marshals will auction off "Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski's personal effects online. Keker & Van Nest partner Steve Hirsch, who represented four victims in court proceedings, comments on what the auction will mean for Kaczynski's victims. Read more
Steven Hirsch and R. James Slaughter provide pro bono assistance to Conductors Guild. Read more
Steve Hirsch was named one of the 2015 Attorneys of the Year for his appellate work on behalf of Davis Wright Tremaine and Foley & Lardner in the Heller Ehrman bankruptcy matter.
Best Lawyers in America ranks Keker, Van Nest & Peters as a Tier 1 firm nationally for Appellate Law.
Benchmark Litigation recognized Keker, Van Nest & Peters as a leading Appellate Firm in the Ninth Circuit.
The Recorder named Elliot Peters a 2010 Attorney of the Year for successfully representing the Major League Baseball Players Association before the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.