Matthias A. Kamber
`
`With a background in mechanical engineering and a practice focused
`on patent and other intellectual property matters, Matthias Kamber
`protects his clients’ technology from aggressive competitors and trolls.
`Regardless of the type of case or technology, he focuses on the key
`issues to identify the most effective legal strategy while balancing each
`client’s corporate objectives. His approach has resulted in favorable
`pre-trial dispositions, successful negotiated resolutions, and victories
`at trial.
`
`Mr. Kamber has handled patent cases involving Internet advertising and
`telephony, smartphones, and microprocessors throughout the country
`and before the U.S. International Trade Commission. He has also
`worked on trademark, copyright, and trade secret matters. In addition to
`his intellectual property practice, he has handled antitrust and
`commercial litigation.
`
`Mr. Kamber is also involved in various IP-related organizations,
`including the American Intellectual Property Law Association, where he
`serves as vice chair of the Patent Litigation Committee, and the Federal
`Circuit Bar Association, where he serves as a co-chair of the Veterans
`Pro Bono Committee. He also represents veterans in pro bono appeals
`to the Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims.
`
`CASES OF NOTE
`
`Suffolk Technologies LLC v. AOL Inc. and Google Inc.: 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.
`
`Matthias A. Kamber
`PARTNER
`mkamber@kvn.com
`Tel. (415) 773-6635
`
`Education
`The George Washington University
`Law School, J.D., with honors, 2002
`
`Cornell University, B.S. in
`mechanical engineering, magna
`cum laude, 1998
`
`Prior Experience
`Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow,
`Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington,
`D.C.
`
`Clerkships
`Hon. Sharon Prost
`U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal
`Circuit, 2003-2004
`
`Bar Admissions
`California
`
`Massachusetts
`
`New York
`
`Page 1 of 5
`
`LG Electronics Exhibit 1034
`LGE, et al. v. Straight Path IP
`IPR2015-00198
`
`

`

`Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.: We represented Google in a high-
`stakes patent and copyright war brought by Oracle with billions of
`dollars at stake. Oracle, which bought the Java programming language
`by acquiring Sun Microsystems in January 2010, alleged that Google’s
`Android mobile technology infringed Oracle's Java patents and
`copyrights. An expert for Oracle estimated Google owed Oracle up to $6
`billion in damages for infringement. Our team 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. Although the jury decided that Google infringed an
`Oracle copyright on nine out of millions of lines of source code, the
`case is considered a sweeping victory for Google, with zero damages.
`
`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 the International Trade Commission (ITC), claiming our client
`had infringed on 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.
`
`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
`Comcast’s Digital Voice service infringed on its patents for Voice over
`Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology. We obtained a non-infringement
`judgment in the Eastern District of Texas, which was sustained on
`appeal.
`
`Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v.
`Semiconductor Company: We represented a leading semiconductor
`company in a patent trial brought in the Eastern District of Texas. The
`Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
`(CSIRO) asserted patent infringement claims against more than a
`dozen of the world's leading technology companies, including our
`client. CSIRO contended the defendants' Wi-Fi products infringed on
`CSIRO's patent, and sought nine to ten figure royalty payments. A week
`into the jury trial, we reached a favorable settlement with CSIRO, and
`the remaining parties also settled favorably.
`
`Plaintiff v. Bioscience Company: We defended a bioscience company
`against claims that it breached a licensing agreement, and fought a
`motion for a preliminary injunction. The case was resolved via early
`evaluation and negotiation.
`
`Washington D.C.
`
`Practice Areas
`
`Antitrust
`Consumer & Class Actions
`Contract & Commercial
`Intellectual Property
`
`News
`
`Valley's Patent Bar Hears From New
`Federal Circuit Chief
`12/11/2014 — Chief Judge of the U.S.
`Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
`Sharon Prost and her former clerk,
`Keker & Van Nest Partner Matthias
`Kamber, discuss the scrutiny the court
`has been getting from the U.S. Supreme
`Court.
`
`Keker & Van Nest Fends off Intrusive
`Demands and Secures Sanctions for
`Client Netflix
`07/09/2014 — A federal judge refused to
`force Netflix Inc. to comply with Straight
`Path IP Group's “oppressive” subpoena
`demanding depositions, source code
`and more for its patent suits, finding
`Tuesday that Netflix is a nonparty in the
`cases and Straight Path may face
`sanctions.
`
`LG, Toshiba Seek New ITC Penalty For
`Last-Minute Withdrawal
`05/09/2014 — Keker & Van Nest team
`called for a change to the ITC rules that
`would enable the agency to punish
`companies abandoning patent
`infringement cases at the last minute.
`
`Supreme Court Enters Fray Over
`Patent Fee Awards
`10/01/2013 — Matthias Kamber
`comments on a hot-button issue in
`patent litigation - how much latitude
`federal district judges should have to
`award attorneys fees to the prevailing
`party.
`
`Page 2 of 5
`
`

`

`Plaintiff v. Impax Laboratories, Inc.: Impax Laboratories, Inc. asked us
`to take over a false advertising case regarding the company's generic
`drug that had been litigated for two years. Within several months we
`took 20 depositions, secured five expert reports, and settled the case
`on very favorable terms for our client.
`
`Plaintiff v. Internet Search Engine: We represented a leading Internet
`search engine and its subsidiary against claims of unfair competition,
`dilution and various tort claims. The case involved novel issues of
`online trademark and domain-name law. After we successfully moved
`to dismiss various claims made by the plaintiff, the case was settled.
`
`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 variety of products that offer
`wireless functionality under the IEEE 802.11 standard for local area
`networks. We settled the case favorably on the eve of trial.
`
`Rembrandt Technologies, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications,
`LLC: We served as lead counsel for Comcast in a patent infringement
`case involving high-speed Internet and digital TV services. Rembrandt
`Technologies, Inc. originally filed the case in the Eastern District of
`Texas, but in conjunction with other co-defendants, we obtained
`consolidation and transfer to the District of Delaware. Based upon
`claim construction, Rembrandt conceded non-infringement of all
`patents, preserving only its right to appeal the claim construction as to
`the ninth. The Federal Circuit upheld the claim construction that
`resulted in non-infringement.
`
`Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Semiconductor Company:
`The patent arm of the University of Wisconsin brought patent claims
`against our client for its core microprocessor technology. As co-lead
`counsel we defended the company, and settled the case favorably on
`the eve of trial.
`
`Multinational Biotechnology Company v. Biopharmaceutical
`Company: We won partial summary judgment for a Seattle
`biopharmaceutical company and its founder in a trade secret and
`contract action over a cystic fibrosis drug. Aided by that ruling, and the
`favorable progress of the trial relating to the remaining claims, another
`biotechnology company acquired our client for $365 million mid-trial.
`
`PUBLICATIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
`
`"Joint/Divided Infringement," 15th Annual Advanced Patent Law
`Institute, 2014
`"Key Developments in Patent Law," Bar Association of San Francisco,
`2014
`"Developments in Pharma & Biotech Patent Litigation," Practising
`Law Institute, 8th Annual Patent Law Institute, 2014
`"Best Practices for Litigating & Managing Disputes Under AIA," The
`Daily Journal/Thomson Reuters Litigating Patent Disputes
`Conference, 2013
`"Finding the Best Cure," Intellectual Property Magazine, 2013.
`Mr. Kamber's article explains how recent White House executive
`actions and proposals targeting frivolous litigation are efforts to treat
`the symptoms of a broken system rather than cure it.
`
`AWARDS AND HONORS
`
`Finding The Best Cure
`06/25/2013 — Matthias Kamber
`explains how recent White House
`executive actions and proposals
`targeting frivolous litigation are efforts to
`treat the symptoms of a broken system
`rather than cure it.
`
`Matthias Kamber Named Rising Star
`04/01/2013 — Law360 honored
`attorneys under the age of 40 whose
`accomplishments in major litigation
`belie their age.
`
`Keker & Van Nest Awarded Top
`Defense Verdict of 2012
`02/13/2013 — Christa Anderson offers
`her insights into how Keker & Van Nest
`defeated Oracle Corp.'s $6 billion
`copyright and patent case on behalf of
`Google.
`
`Federal Circuit Affirms Win for
`Comcast
`09/14/2012 — Keker & Van Nest wins a
`complete victory in patent infringement
`case.
`
`23 Keker & Van Nest Attorneys Named
`"Best Lawyers"
`08/28/2012 — The firm receives top
`rankings for bet-the-company,
`intellectual property, criminal defense,
`securities, commercial, legal
`malpractice, and appellate litigation.
`
`Smartphone Patent Litigation
`07/18/2012 — Matthias Kamber
`comments on the value of patents in the
`smartphone industry.
`
`The Future of APIs
`06/28/2012 — Matthias Kamber
`provides insights on the copyrightability
`of APIs.
`
`Keker & Van Nest Wins Defense
`Verdict for Google in High-Stakes
`Battle with Oracle
`05/23/2012 — Keker & Van Nest bested
`Oracle's legal team, who were unable to
`secure any significant wins during the
`multiphase five-week trial.
`
`Keker & Van Nest Drastically Limits
`Damages in Copyright Phase of Oracle
`v. Google Smartphone War
`05/07/2012 — Partial verdict in Oracle-
`Google case seen as setback for
`Oracle.
`
`17 Partners Selected for 2012 Best
`
`Page 3 of 5
`
`

`

`Lawyers in America
`09/01/2011 — Keker & Van Nest
`partners were recognized in more than
`ten categories, including bet-the-
`company litigation, criminal defense,
`and intellectual property litigation.
`
`Events
`
`Advanced Patent Law Institute
`12/11/2014 — Matthias Kamber will
`present "Joint/Divided Infringement" at
`the 15th Annual Advanced Patent Law
`Institute.
`
`Key Developments in Patent Law
`10/10/2014 — Matthias Kamber and
`Matan Shacham will present to the Bar
`Association of San Francisco's
`Barristers Club.
`
`2014 Patent Law Institute
`MARCH 17-18, 2014 — Matthias
`Kamber will be a featured speaker at
`this annual institute, designed to be of
`ultimate practice value to all three
`subgroups in the patent law community:
`patent prosecutors, patent litigators, and
`strategic/transactional lawyers.
`
`Best Practices for Litigating &
`Managing Disputes under AIA
`11/05/2013 — Matthias Kamber will
`address this critical topic at the 2013
`Litigating Patent Disputes Conference.
`
`Patent Disputes 2013
`03/27/2013 — Ashok Ramani, Asim
`Bhansali and Matthias Kamber will
`speak at this conference, which brings
`together a distinguished faculty of the
`foremost patent attorneys, judges, and
`in-house counsel in the country.
`
`World’s Leading Patent Practitioners, IAM Patent 1000, 2014
`Intellectual Property Rising Star, Law360, 2013
`Best Lawyers in America for Intellectual Property and Patent
`Litigation, 2012-2014
`Recommended Attorney, Intellectual Property - Patent litigation, The
`Legal 500 U.S., 2011
`Committee Individual Leadership Award, Federal Circuit Bar
`Association, 2011
`Rising Star, Northern California Super Lawyers, 2010-2013
`Editor-in-chief, George Washington International Law Review
`Order of the Coif, George Washington University Law School
`
`PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS
`
`Member, Federal Circuit Bar Association
`Vice chair of Patent Litigation Subcommittee on Experts, American
`Intellectual Property Law Association, 2013-2014
`Co-chair of Damages Subcommittee, American Intellectual Property
`Law Association, 2012-2013
`
`
`
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, PATENT
`
`Suffolk Technologies LLC v. AOL Inc. and Google Inc.: 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.
`
`Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.: We represented Google in a high-
`stakes patent and copyright war brought by Oracle with billions of
`dollars at stake. Oracle, which bought the Java programming language
`by acquiring Sun Microsystems in January 2010, alleged that Google’s
`Android mobile technology infringed Oracle's Java patents and
`copyrights. An expert for Oracle estimated Google owed Oracle up to $6
`billion in damages for infringement. Our team 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. Although the jury decided that Google infringed an
`Oracle copyright on nine out of millions of lines of source code, the
`case is considered a sweeping victory for Google, with zero damages.
`
`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 the International Trade Commission (ITC), claiming our client
`had infringed on 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.
`
`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
`Comcast’s Digital Voice service infringed on its patents for Voice over
`Internet Protocol (VoIP) technology. We obtained a non-infringement
`judgment in the Eastern District of Texas, which was sustained on
`appeal.
`
`Page 4 of 5
`
`

`

`Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation v.
`Semiconductor Company: We represented a leading semiconductor
`company in a patent trial brought in the Eastern District of Texas. The
`Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation
`(CSIRO) asserted patent infringement claims against more than a
`dozen of the world's leading technology companies, including our
`client. CSIRO contended the defendants' Wi-Fi products infringed on
`CSIRO's patent, and sought nine to ten figure royalty payments. A week
`into the jury trial, we reached a favorable settlement with CSIRO, and
`the remaining parties also settled favorably.
`
`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 variety of products that offer
`wireless functionality under the IEEE 802.11 standard for local area
`networks. We settled the case favorably on the eve of trial.
`
`Rembrandt Technologies, Inc. v. Comcast Cable Communications,
`LLC: We served as lead counsel for Comcast in a patent infringement
`case involving high-speed Internet and digital TV services. Rembrandt
`Technologies, Inc. originally filed the case in the Eastern District of
`Texas, but in conjunction with other co-defendants, we obtained
`consolidation and transfer to the District of Delaware. Based upon
`claim construction, Rembrandt conceded non-infringement of all
`patents, preserving only its right to appeal the claim construction as to
`the ninth. The Federal Circuit upheld the claim construction that
`resulted in non-infringement.
`
`INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY, TRADEMARK / UNFAIR COMPETITION
`
`Abbott and Fournier v. Teva, Impax Laboratories, Inc.: 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.
`
`Plaintiff v. Internet Search Engine: We represented a leading Internet
`search engine and its subsidiary against claims of unfair competition,
`dilution and various tort claims. The case involved novel issues of
`online trademark and domain-name law. After we successfully moved
`to dismiss various claims made by the plaintiff, the case was settled.
`
`Discover v. Visa USA, Inc.: We defended Visa USA, Inc. in one of the
`largest private civil antitrust matters in U.S. history. Discover sued
`MasterCard and Visa for alleged antitrust violations, claiming that credit
`card network rules affected member banks’ ability to issue American
`Express and Discover cards. The case settled on the eve of trial for
`billions less than Discover claimed. We also defended Visa in a similar
`action brought by American Express.
`
`CONTRACT DISPUTES
`
`Plaintiff v. Bioscience Company: We defended a bioscience company
`against claims that it breached a licensing agreement, and fought a
`motion for a preliminary injunction. The case was resolved via early
`evaluation and negotiation.
`
`Multinational Biotechnology Company v. Biopharmaceutical
`Company: We won partial summary judgment for a Seattle
`biopharmaceutical company and its founder in a trade secret and
`contract action over a cystic fibrosis drug. Aided by that ruling, and the
`favorable progress of the trial relating to the remaining claims, another
`biotechnology company acquired our client for $365 million mid-trial.
`
`Page 5 of 5
`
`