This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Robert A. Van Nest

By Pat Broderick | Sep. 12, 2013

Sep. 12, 2013

Robert A. Van Nest

See more on Robert A. Van Nest

Keker & Van Nest LLP | San Francisco | Practice type: Litigation


Van Nest served as lead trial counsel for Google Inc. in a patent infringement dispute that had some unusual developments.


At issue, Suffolk Technologies LLC had claimed that Google's Adsense advertising placement technology - which places paid ads for a company's product or service on the Web page of another - used a similar protocol to the one under patent with Suffolk. Suffolk Technologies LLC v. AOL Inc. et al., 12-CV-625 (E.D. Va., filed June 7, 2012).


"It was exciting because it was the first assertion of that patent against anybody significant with very large revenue bases," Van Nest said.


Judge T.S. Ellis III granted Van Nest's 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.


Under this standard, a party may raise a motion to exclude the presentation of allegedly unqualified evidence to the jury.


"He said the methodology was so poor and flawed that he wouldn't allow the expert to testify," Van Nest said.


Given these two rulings, he added, "it's somewhat unusual for a judge to invalidate a patent on summary judgment. It's also unusual to strike expert testimony in its entirety."


Both rulings are now on appeal in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.


In another ongoing matter, Van Nest continues to serve as lead trial counsel for Google Inc. in what has been billed as an epic battle with Oracle America Inc. Oracle America Inc. v. Google Inc., 10-CV-03561 (N.D. Cal., filed Aug. 12, 2010).


Oracle is alleging that Google's Android mobile operating technology infringes Oracles's Java patents.


To date, the jury returned a partial verdict on the copyright claims, which limits the statutory damages to no more than $150,000. In May 2012, the jury returned a unanimous verdict, rejecting all claims of patent infringement.


The copyright case is on appeal.

- PAT BRODERICK

#269638

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390

Send a letter to the editor:

Email: letters@dailyjournal.com