FacultyFaculty/Author Profile
Matthias A. Kamber

Matthias A. Kamber

Keker & Van Nest LLP

San Francisco, CA, USA

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 quickly determines the most effective legal strategy while balancing each client’s corporate objectives. His approach has resulted in favorable early-stage dispositions, successful negotiated resolutions, and victories at trial.

He has handled cases involving smartphone software and hardware, Internet telephony, wireless networking, microprocessor design, and medical devices throughout the country and before the U.S. International Trade Commission.

In addition to his intellectual property practice, he has also handled antitrust and commercial litigation.


Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc.: We represented Google in a highstakes 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 Taiwanbased 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.

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 won a complete victory for Comcast Cable Communications, LLC 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 codefendants, we obtained consolidation and transfer to the District of Delaware. Following completion of discovery, claim construction, and summary judgment briefing, 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.


"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.


  • 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

  • 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

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.


Hon. Sharon Prost
U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2003-2004

Bar Admissions



New York

Washington D.C.

Practice Areas
  • Antitrust
  • Consumer & Class Actions
  • Contract & Commercial
  • Intellectual Property

  • twitter
  • LinkedIn
  • GooglePlus
  • RSS

All Contents Copyright © 1996-2018 Practising Law Institute. Continuing Legal Education since 1933.

© 2018 PLI PRACTISING LAW INSTITUTE. All rights reserved. The PLI logo is a service mark of PLI.