Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP

Last updated
Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP
Keker & Van Nest Logo.jpg
Headquarters San Francisco, California
No. of offices1
No. of attorneys115
Major practice areasLitigation
Key peopleLaurie Mims, Managing Partner
Date founded1978
FounderJohn W. Keker and William A. Brockett, Jr.
Company type Limited liability partnership
Website www.keker.com

Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP is a litigation boutique located in San Francisco, California, founded in 1978. The firm's areas of practice include intellectual property, professional liability, class actions, wrongful termination defense, general contract and commercial litigation, antitrust, white collar crime, and appellate.

Contents

History

The firm was founded as Keker & Brockett in 1978 by Yale Law School colleagues John Keker and William A. Brockett Jr. [1] The firm was renamed Keker, Brockett & Van Nest in 1992, and then Keker & Van Nest in 1994, reflecting first the addition of Robert Van Nest to the firm's leadership, and then the departure of founding partner Bill Brockett. [2] Partner Elliot Peters was added to the firm's name in January 2017. [3]

Cases

In United States Department of Justice v. McKesson Corporation . Keker & Van Nest defeated the government's six-year False Claims Act case against McKesson Corporation and one of its subsidiaries. The government had sought nearly a billion dollars in penalties and damages based on allegations that a McKesson subsidiary submitted "legally false" Medicare insurance reimbursement claims by violating Medicare supplier standards and charging less than fair-market value for billing services in exchange for product sales. In early 2010, Hon. Sharion Aycock dismissed the Qui Tam Relator who initiated this case, the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision on appeal. In March 2011, Keker & Van Nest won summary adjudication on all claims relating to alleged violations of Medicare supplier standards. After a three-week bench trial, the court granted judgment in defendants’ favor. [4]

In Oracle Corporation v. Google, Inc. Keker & Van Nest represented Google in a patent and copyright infringement trial brought by the Oracle Corporation, billed as the "smartphone trial of the century." [5] The case was a battle between two of Silicon Valley's most respected and powerful companies in which Oracle initially sought nearly $6 billion in damages and an injunction forcing Google to change the way it used and distributed the popular Android operating system, which powers more than 300 million smartphones and tablet computers. [6] 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 on Oracle copyright on nine out of millions of lines of source code, the case is considered a sweeping victory for Google, with zero damages. [7] [8]

In State of New York v. Intel Corporation , Keker & Van Nest was lead trial counsel for Intel Corporation in an antitrust case. The New York Attorney General claimed Intel violated federal and state antitrust statutes by maintaining an illegal monopoly in the microprocessor market. Keker won several key motions near the start of trial that severely limited the scope of New York's case. The matter settled shortly thereafter with a payment by Intel of only $6.5 million in partial repayment of some of New York's costs. [9]

In Securities and Exchange Commission v. Brian Stoker , Keker & Van Nest defended former Citigroup executive Brian Stoker in one of the rare financial crisis cases to go to trial. Stoker, who worked on the structuring desk at Citigroup, was charged with securities fraud in connection with Citigroup’s 2007 marketing of a $1 billion collateralized debt obligation (CDO) backed by assets tied to the housing market. After a two-week jury trial in the Southern District of New York with Judge Rakoff presiding, the federal jury rejected the SEC’s case and found Mr. Stoker not liable on any of the SEC’s claims. [10]

In VS Technologies LLC v. Twitter Inc., by winning a defense verdict in this federal jury trial, Keker & Van Nest protected Twitter Inc. from a patent infringement suit and a $40 million damages claim. [11] [12]

In Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company v. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation , the law firm represented the world's leading semiconductor foundry TSMC against China's leading semiconductor manufacturer SMIC in the largest trade secret misuse case ever tried in which SMIC faced a damages claim of $2 billion. Following a jury verdict in favor of TSMC, [13] TSMC settled with SMIC. [14]

In United States Department of Justice v. Major League Baseball Players Association, the firm represented the Major League Baseball Players Association in a high-profile battle with the U.S. government. In August 2009, an en banc panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit ruled that the 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. [15]

In Apple Inc. v. HTC Corporation , Keker & Van Nest served as lead counsel for HTC in its battle with Apple over smartphone technology. Apple first sued HTC in district court and before the United States International Trade Commission (ITC), claiming HTC had infringed on 20 patents related to various computer-related technologies, including user interfaces, operating systems, power management and digital sign processing. The ITC hearing that went to decision resulting in a favorable ruling, [16] and HTC obtained a settlement to become the first Android handset maker licensed by Apple. [17] [18] [19]

In Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v. Semiconductor Company, the firm represented a semiconductor company in a case where CSIRO asserted patent infringement claims against more than a dozen of the world's leading technology companies. CSIRO contended the defendants' Wi-Fi products infringed on CSIRO's patent, and sought nine to ten figure royalty payments. All parties settled a week into the jury trial.

In John J. Tennison v. City and County of San Francisco, the firm represented John Tennison in his habeas corpus case where it was discovered that exculpatory evidence hidden by the police which proved Mr. Tennison's innocence-including a taped confession by another man. [20] [21] A civil rights claim was brought against the City and County of San Francisco, the police and prosecutor responsible for the wrongful conviction. The civil rights case was settled for $4.6 million. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, it was the largest amount the city has ever paid to a wrongly convicted person. [22]

In U.S. v. Swartz , Elliot Peters defended open access activist Aaron Swartz. [23]

Pro bono work

In 2014, Jon Streeter, Sharif Jacob and Benita Brahmbhatt secured the release of Roy Butler, who served 13 years beyond his base term. Butler’s case caused California to reform its parole system. [24]

In 2014, Elliot Peters and Jo Golub were named Pro Bono Attorneys of the Year by California Lawyer [25] for their work with the Northern California Innocence Project at the Santa Clara University School of Law exonerated Ronald Ross of attempted murder charge after serving nearly 7 years of his 25-to-life sentence. [26]

In 2012, Dan Purcell and Eric MacMichael were named California Lawyer "Attorney of the Year" in the area of pro bono. [27] They dedicated five years to exonerating Caramad Conley, a man who was wrongfully convicted of a double homicide and spent 18 years in prison. [28] The conviction was overturned as a result of uncovering prosecutorial and police misconduct. [29] [30]

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Eolas</span>

Eolas is a United States technology firm formed as a spin-off from the University of California, San Francisco (UCSF), in order to commercialize UCSF's patents for work done there by Eolas' co-founders, as part of the Visible Embryo Project. The company was founded in 1994 by Dr. Michael Doyle, Rachelle Tunik, David Martin, and Cheong Ang from the UCSF Center for Knowledge Management (CKM). The company was created at the request of UCSF, and was founded by the inventors of the university's patents.

Rambus Inc. is an American technology company that designs, develops and licenses chip interface technologies and architectures that are used in digital electronics products. The company, founded in 1990, is well known for inventing RDRAM and for its intellectual property-based litigation following the introduction of DDR-SDRAM memory.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Patent troll</span> Pejorative term related to intellectual property

In international law and business, patent trolling or patent hoarding is a categorical or pejorative term applied to a person or company that attempts to enforce patent rights against accused infringers far beyond the patent's actual value or contribution to the prior art, often through hardball legal tactics Patent trolls often do not manufacture products or supply services based upon the patents in question. However, some entities, which do not practice their asserted patent, may not be considered "patent trolls", when they license their patented technologies on reasonable terms in advance.

Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U.S. 370 (1996), is a United States Supreme Court case on whether the interpretation of patent claims is a matter of law or a question of fact. An issue designated as a matter of law is resolved by the judge, and an issue construed as a question of fact is determined by the jury.

NTP, Inc. is a Virginia-based patent holding company founded in 1992 by the late inventor Thomas J. Campana Jr. and Donald E. Stout. The company's primary asset is a portfolio of 50 US patents and additional pending US and international patent applications. These patents and patent applications disclose inventions in the fields of wireless email and RF Antenna design. The named inventors include Andrew Andros and Thomas Campana. About half of the US patents were originally assigned to Telefind Corporation, a Florida-based company partly owned by Campana.

Florian Müller is an app developer and an intellectual property activist. He consulted for Microsoft and writes the FOSSPatents blog about patent and copyright issues. From 1985 to 1998, he was a computer magazine writer and consultant for companies, helping with collaborations between software companies. In 2004 he founded the NoSoftwarePatents campaign and in 2007 he provided some consultancy in relation to football policy.

The multinational technology corporation Apple Inc. has been a participant in various legal proceedings and claims since it began operation and, like its competitors and peers, engages in litigation in its normal course of business for a variety of reasons. In particular, Apple is known for and promotes itself as actively and aggressively enforcing its intellectual property interests. From the 1980s to the present, Apple has been plaintiff or defendant in civil actions in the United States and other countries. Some of these actions have determined significant case law for the information technology industry and many have captured the attention of the public and media. Apple's litigation generally involves intellectual property disputes, but the company has also been a party in lawsuits that include antitrust claims, consumer actions, commercial unfair trade practice suits, defamation claims, and corporate espionage, among other matters.

<i>Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp.</i> Legal case

Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp., also known as Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc., was a long-running patent infringement case between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft litigated in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California and appealed multiple times to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Alcatel-Lucent was awarded $1.53 billion in a final verdict in August 2007 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California in San Diego. The damages award was reversed on appeal in September 2009, and the case was returned for a separate trial on the amount of damages.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Stuart Hanlon</span>

Stuart Hanlon is an attorney based in San Francisco, California who represented San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr, Geronimo Pratt and members of the Symbionese Liberation Army.

William F. Lee is an American intellectual property and commercial litigation trial attorney. As co-managing partner of WilmerHale, Lee was the first Asian-American to lead a major American law firm. He is also a Senior Fellow of the Harvard Corporation, the governing board of Harvard University.

Nic Marais is a former South African radio personality. Marais hosted Kfm Breakfast from January 2002 to June 2008. His remains the most listened-to breakfast show in Cape Town's history with 1.3 million weekly listeners. During his time on radio, he conducted numerous high-profile interviews with local and international politicians and celebrities. These included Nobel Prize laureates Nelson Mandela, Desmond Tutu and F.W. de Klerk, and movie stars Charlize Theron and Morgan Freeman.

Bristows is a full-service commercial, law firm, particularly known for its technology and intellectual property work.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Vringo</span>

Vringo was a technology company that became involved in the worldwide patent wars. The company won a 2012 intellectual property lawsuit against Google, in which a U.S. District Court ordered Google to pay 1.36 percent of U.S. AdWords sales. Analysts estimated Vringo's judgment against Google to be worth over $1 billion. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit overturned the District Court's ruling on appeal in August 2014 in a split 2-1 decision, which Intellectual Asset Magazine called "the most troubling case of 2014." Vringo appealed to the United States Supreme Court. Vringo also pursued worldwide litigation against ZTE Corporation in twelve countries, including the United Kingdom, Germany, Australia, Malaysia, India, Spain, Netherlands, Romania, China, Malaysia, Brazil and the United States. The high profile nature of the intellectual property suits filed by the firm against large corporations known for anti-patent tendencies has led some commentators to refer to the firm as a patent vulture or patent troll.

Article One Partners (AOP) is an online prior art search and intellectual property research crowdsourcing community. AOP was acquired by RWS Group in October 2017 and the AOP Connect crowdsourcing platform is now part of the IP Research group within RWS. RWS IP Research provides crowdsourced prior-art-search services by utilizing an online research community. The company's President stated that, as of June 30, 2018, AOP comprises "more than 40,000 in over 170 countries."

The smartphone wars or smartphone patents licensing and litigation refers to commercial struggles among smartphone manufacturers including Sony Mobile, Google, Apple Inc., Samsung, Microsoft, Nokia, Motorola, Huawei, LG Electronics, ZTE and HTC, by patent litigation and other means. The conflict is part of the wider "patent wars" between technology and software corporations.

Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. is the general title of a series of patent infringement lawsuits between Apple Inc. and Samsung Electronics in the United States Court system, regarding the design of smartphones and tablet computers. Between them, the two companies have dominated the manufacturing of smartphones since the early 2010s, and made about 40% of all smartphones sold worldwide as of 2024. In early 2011, Apple began litigating against Samsung in patent infringement suits, with Samsung typically filing countersuits with similar allegations. Apple's multinational litigation over technology patents became known as part of the smartphone wars: extensive litigation and fierce competition in the global market for consumer mobile communications.

Google LLC v. Oracle America, Inc., 593 U.S. ___ (2021), was a U.S. Supreme Court decision related to the nature of computer code and copyright law. The dispute centered on the use of parts of the Java programming language's application programming interfaces (APIs) and about 11,000 lines of source code, which are owned by Oracle, within early versions of the Android operating system by Google. Google has since transitioned Android to a copyright-unburdened engine without the source code, and has admitted to using the APIs but claimed this was within fair use.

Elliot R. Peters is a trial attorney at San Francisco law firm Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP, who frequently works on cases of national significance. He is representing the PGA TOUR in an antitrust lawsuit filed by 11 professional golfers who left the PGA TOUR and joined LIV Golf. He led the defenses of internet activist Aaron Swartz and cyclist Lance Armstrong. He represented the Major League Baseball Players Association in successfully challenging DOJ seizures of baseball players' drug testing records, in the seminal computer search case, United States v Comprehensive Drug Testing, 579 F.3d 989 (2009). He has also defended financier Frank Quattrone, securities litigator William Lerach and CEO Bruce Karatz. He has represented top international law firms defending malpractice claims and technology companies defending intellectual property claims. Elliot has been named Attorney of the Year in California three times, twice for freeing indigent men, serving life sentences for murder, but who were actually innocent.

Google has been involved in multiple lawsuits over issues such as privacy, advertising, intellectual property and various Google services such as Google Books and YouTube. The company's legal department expanded from one to nearly 100 lawyers in the first five years of business, and by 2014 had grown to around 400 lawyers. Google's Chief Legal Officer is Senior Vice President of Corporate Development David Drummond.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">OPTi Inc.</span> Semiconductor company in California, US

OPTi Inc. was a fabless semiconductor company based in Milpitas, California, that primarily manufactured chipsets for personal computers. The company dissolved in 2001 and transferred its assets to the unaffiliated non-practicing entity OPTi Technologies

References

  1. ↑ Guthrie, Julian (10 June 2012). "John Keker relishes fight in the courtroom". SFGate.
  2. ↑ McCloud, John. "A Nice Guy Finishes First". SuperLawyers.
  3. ↑ Cohen, Rebecca. "Keker & Van Nest Changing Name as It Elevates High-Profile Litigator". The Recorder.
  4. ↑ Karabin, Sherry. , "Keker Team Won a $1 Billion Bet for McKesson", National Law Journal, August 12, 2013.
  5. ↑ Sembi, Kamaldeep. , "Oracle v. Google: Judge Alsup Sets The Record Straight", MBM's Canadian Intellectual Property Law Blog, June 5, 2012.
  6. ↑ Proffitt, Brian. , "What's at stake in Oracle v. Google", IT World, May 3, 2012.
  7. ↑ Mullin, Joe. , "Google wins crucial API Ruling, Oracle's case decimated", ars technica, May 31, 2012.
  8. ↑ Honig, Zach. , "Jury issues verdict in Android suit, finds that Google doesn't infringe Oracle patents", Endgadget, May 23, 2012.
  9. ↑ Tibken, Shara. , "Intel To Pay $6.5 Mln In Settlement As NY Ends Antitrust Suit", The Wall Street Journal, February 9, 2012.
  10. ↑ Van Voris, Bob and Emily Grannis. , "SEC Loses Lawsuit Against Ex-Citigroup Official Stoker", Bloomberg News, August 1, 2012.
  11. ↑ Barnett, Griffin. , "Twitter Prevails in ‘Virtual Community’ Patent Lawsuit", American University Washington College of Law Intellectual Property Brief, November 1, 2011.
  12. ↑ Decker, Susan. , "Twitter Wins Patent Trial Over Virtual Internet Community", Bloomberg, October 31, 2011.
  13. ↑ Elinson, Zusha. , "Keker Wins Trade Secret Theft Case", The Recorder, November 5, 2009.
  14. ↑ Elinson, Zusha. , "Semiconductor Trade Secrets Case Settles for $200 Million", The Recorder, November 10, 2009.
  15. ↑ LaRoe, Ginny. , "Steroids in Baseball: 9th Circuit Backtracks on Electronic Search Rules", The Recorder, September 14, 2010.
  16. ↑ Mueller, Florian. , "Apple wins ITC ruling of narrow technical scope against HTC: a limited victory but just the beginning", Foss Patents, December 19, 2011.
  17. ↑ Davis, Ryan. , "Apple, HTC Strike Deal To End Smartphone Patent Suits", Law360, November 13, 2012.
  18. ↑ Ferenstein, Gregory. , "Apple And HTC Settle Remaining Lawsuits", TechCrunch, November 10, 2012.
  19. ↑ Levine, Dan. , "Apple and HTC settle global patent battle", Reuters, November 10, 2012.
  20. ↑ Rosenfeld, Seth. , "After 13 years, its beautiful to be free again. Exonerated inmate couldn't believe he was getting out", San Francisco Chronicle, September 3, 2003.
  21. ↑ Ryan, Joan. , "Innocent man freed with luck, good lawyers", San Francisco Chronicle, May 2, 2004.
  22. ↑ Van Derbeken, Jaxon. , "S.F. man pay freed man $4.5 million settlement", San Francisco Chronicle, June 4, 2009.
  23. ↑ Hawkinson, John. , "Swartz gets high-powered attorneys", The Tech, November 2, 2012.
  24. ↑ Egelko, Bob (December 17, 2013). "Settlement could mean earlier paroles for some". San Francisco Chronicle.
  25. ↑ "California Lawyer Attorneys of the Year". California Lawyer. March 2014.
  26. ↑ Bulwa, Demian (February 23, 2013). "Innocent Man is freed after 7 years". San Francisco Chronicle.
  27. ↑ "2012 California Lawyer Attorneys of the Year". California Lawyer. March 2012.
  28. ↑ Cote, John (July 13, 2014). "Wrongfully convicted S.F. man poised to get $3.5 million". San Francisco Chronicle.
  29. ↑ Van Derbeken, Jaxon (January 12, 2011). "Man wrongfully convicted of SF killings to go free". San Francisco Chronicle.
  30. ↑ Berton, Justin (January 13, 2011). "S.F.: Man wrongfully convicted of 2 murders freed". San Francisco Chronicle.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.