Practice Areas & Industries: Keker & Van Nest LLP

Practice/Industry Group Overview

From the groundbreaking Grokster case in the U.S. Supreme Court, to a California Supreme Court case that will make new law on the vicarious disqualification of government lawyers, to a legal-malpractice case that established new causation standards throughout the state, Keker & Van Nest attorneys are influencing the development of civil and criminal law through their appellate work.

Our lawyers--most of whom have clerked for federal judges--handle writs and appeals in every area of law that gives rise to complex litigation, including intellectual property, commercial arbitration, securities fraud, professional malpractice, employment, insurance coverage, ballot initiatives and voting rights, bankruptcy, civil procedure, and federal criminal law and procedure.

On appeal, as in trial, our work displays tactical sophistication and a penchant for getting to the point. Our briefs strive for a tone that is scholarly and credible, yet also pragmatic, incisive and--we hope--never boring.

In addition to appellate proceedings in our own cases, we handle writs and appeals for clients and trial counsel who feel that they could benefit from a fresh viewpoint on a case. We encourage counsel to consult with us as soon as they believe that a client may need appellate representation, preferably well before trial-court proceedings conclude.

Appellate decisions since 1990 listing Keker & Van Nest as counsel for a party or as counsel for an amicus curiae include:

In the Federal Appellate Courts:

• Andriasian v. INS,
  180 F.3d 1033 (9th Cir. 1999)
  Asylum
• In re: Am. Honda Dealership Rels. Litig.,
  No. 04-1137, 2005 WL 616009 (4th Cir. Mar. 17, 2005)
  Alleged violation of MDL settlement agreement's nonretaliation clause
• Berg v. Leason,
  32 F.3d 422 (9th Cir. 1994)
  Removal jurisdiction in malicious-prosecution case
• Cadence Design Sys. v. Avant! Corp.,
  No. 99-15048, 1999 U.S. App. LEXIS 18302 (9th Cir. July 30, 1999)
  Preliminary injunction in copyright-infringement/trade-secret misappropriation case
• Cadence Design Sys. v. Avant! Corp.,
  125 F.3d 824 (9th Cir. 1997)
  Injunction in copyright infringement/trade-secret misappropriation case
• Chiron Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.,
  363 F.3d 1247 (Fed. Cir. 2004) (on brief)
  Validity of patent for monoclonal antibodies capable of binding to specific human breast-cancer antigen
• Creative Tech. v. Aztech Sys. Pte.,
  61 F.3d 696 (9th Cir. 1995)
  Forum non conveniens in copyright-infringement case
• CSC Consulting, Inc. v. Tosco Refining Co.,
  Nos. 99-16036, 99-16041, 2001 U.S. App. LEXIS 21546 (9th Cir. Sept. 26, 2001)
  Summary judgment on contract claims
• Flores v. Morgan Hill Unified Sch. Dist.,
  324 F.3d 1130 (9th Cir. 2003)
  School administrators' qualified immunity for tolerating anti-gay harassment
• Harris Corp. v. Ixys Corp.,
  114 F.3d 1149 (Fed. Cir. 1997)
  Patent infringement
• Intel Corp. v. ULSI Sys. Tech.,
  995 F.2d 1566 (Fed. Cir. 1993)
  Patent infringement
• Koroma v. INS,
  No. 94-70686, 1996 U.S. App. LEXIS 10963 (9th Cir. Apr. 26, 1996)
  Asylum
• Kwai Fun Wong v. United States,
  373 F.3d 952 (9th Cir. 2004) (amicus)
  Deported religious leader's Bivens action against INS
• Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer Studios. Inc. v. Grokster Ltd.,
  380 F.3d 1154 (9th Cir.), cert. granted, 125 S. Ct. 686 (2004)
  Vicarious copyright-infringement liability of distributors of peer-to-peer file-sharing computer-networking software
• Morris v. Lifescan, Inc.,
  Nos. 02-15765, 02-15779, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 820 (9th Cir. Jan. 16, 2003)
  Award of class-action attorneys' fees
• Narumanchi v. Gould,
  Nos. 97-16901, 97-17350, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 23102 (9th Cir. Sept. 14, 1998)
  Rule 11 and civil-contempt sanctions
• Paracor Fin., Inc. v. GE Capital Corp.,
  96 F.3d 1151 (9th Cir. 1996)
  Securities fraud
• In re Pettit,
  217 F.3d 1072 (9th Cir. 2000)
  Automatic stay in bankruptcy
• Porter v. Cal. Dep't of Corrections,
  383 F.3d 1018 (9th Cir. 2004)
  Female correctional officer's Title VII sex-discrimination claims against state corrections department
• PowerAgent Inc. v. U.S. Dist. Ct.,
  No. 99-70560, 2000 U.S. App. LEXIS 633 (9th Cir. Jan. 14, 2000)
  Mandamus proceeding
• Tegal Corp. v. Tokyo Electron Co.,
  248 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
  Contempt order for continuing to service infringing product
• Tijani v. Willis.,
  430 F.3d 1241 (9th Cir. 2005))
  Constitutional limitations on mandatory pre-removal detention
• Tegal Corp. v. Tokyo Electron Co.,
  257 F.3d 1331 (Fed. Cir. 2001)
  Patent infringement, attorneys' fees for willful infringement
• United States v. Esparza-Mendoza ,
  386 F.3d 953 (10th Cir. 2004) (amicus)
  Fourth Amendment search and seizure
• United States v. Jones,
  286 F.3d 1146 (9th Cir. 2002)
  Legality of warrantless office search by public employer
• United States v. La. Pac. Corp.,
  106 F.3d 345 (10th Cir. 1997)
  Federal criminal appellate jurisdiction
• United States v. Lipkin,
  No. 94-10438, 1995 U.S. App. LEXIS 20484 (9th Cir. July 17, 1995)
  Validity of sentencing 'enhancement' for contempt of court
• United States v. Noushfar,
  78 F.3d 1442, amended, 140 F.3d 1244 (9th Cir. 1996)
  Federal criminal procedure
• United States v. Thomas,
  32 F.3d 418 (9th Cir. 1994)
  Evidentiary rulings in mail-fraud trial
• Univ. of Colo. Fdn., Inc. v. Am. Cyanamid Co.,
  342 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2003)
  Federal patent-law preemption of unjust-enrichment claim
• Woods v. The Wright Inst.,
  No. 96-16811, 1998 U.S. App. LEXIS 6012 (9th Cir. Mar. 24, 1998)
  Summary judgment on employment-discrimination claims
• Yarian v. Old Republic Title Co.,
  No. 95-17219, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 12014 (9th Cir. May 22, 1997)
  Dismissal of civil RICO claim

In the State Appellate Courts:

• AB Cellular LA LLC (AT&T Wireless) v. City of Los Angeles,
  No. B159805, 2003 WL 21290906 (Cal. Ct. App. June 5, 2003)
  Dismissal of tax-refund complaint
• Advanced Micro Devices v. Intel Corp.,
  9 Cal.4th 362 (1994)
  Scope of review of arbitrator's award
• Ajida Techs., Inc. v. Roos Instruments, Inc.,
  87 Cal. App. 4th 534 (2001)
  Challenge to provisions of arbitration award
• Arntz Constr. Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co.,
  47 Cal. App. 4th 464 (1996)
  Business torts
• Bronco Wine Co. v. Jolly,
  33 Cal.4th 943 (2004)
  Federal preemption of state wine-labelling statute
• Cadence Design Sys., Inc. v. Avant! Corp.,
  29 Cal.4th 215 (2002)
  When claim arises under Uniform Trade Secrets Act
• CD Listening Bar, Inc. v. Super. Ct.,
  No. G029317, 2001 WL 1660049 (Cal. Ct. App. Dec. 28, 2001)
  Third-party beneficiary's right to compel arbitration
• City and County of San Francisco v. Cobra Solutions, Inc.,
  119 Cal. App. 4th 304 (2004), depublished by grant of review, No. S126397, 18 Cal. Rptr. 3d 411 (Cal. Aug. 25, 2004)
  Vicarious disqualification of entire City Attorney's office based on conflict of interest
• City and County of San Francisco v. Super. Ct.,
  No. A105932 (Cal. Ct. App. 2004)
  Writ of supersedeas overturning injunction against voter-approved parking garage in Golden Gate Park
• City of Hope Nat'l Med. Ctr. v. Genentech, Inc.,
  123 Cal. App. 4th 306 (2004), depublished by grant of review, No. S129463, 24 Cal. Rptr. 3d 178 (Cal. Feb. 2, 2005)
  Availability of tort and punitive damages for breach of intellectual-property agreement
• Dickson, Carlson & Campillo v. Pole,
  83 Cal. App. 4th 436 (2000)
  Partnership dissolution
• Eckert v. Bay Area Cellular Tel. Co. (AT&T Wireless),
  85 Cal. App. 4th 1369, 102 Cal. Rptr. 2d 880 (2001), depublished, 2001 Daily Journal D.A.R. 287 (Jan. 8, 2001)
  CPUC preemption of class action brought under Business & Professions Code § 17200
• General Accident Ins. Co. v. Super. Ct. (Western MacArthur Co.),
  55 Cal. App. 4th 1444 (1997)
  Insurance coverage
• Hill v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass'n,
  7 Cal.4th 1 (1994)
  NCAA drug-testing case
• Hinesley v. Gardiner,
  No. F043638, 2004 WL 2397253 (Cal. Ct. App. Oct. 27, 2004)
  Specific performance of land-sale contract
• Jara v. Suprema Meats, Inc.,
  121 Cal. App. 4th 1238 (2004)
  Enforceability of contract restricting executive compensation
• Jordache Enters., Inc. v. Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison
  18 Cal.4th 739 (1998)
  Legal-malpractice statute of limitations
• Joseph v. Ashman and Brobeck, Phleger & Harrison,
  No. G027771, 2002 WL 533201 (Cal. Ct. App. Apr. 10, 2002)
  Effect of general release made orally in open court
• Kern Cardiology Med. Group, Inc. v. Bakersfield Family Med. Ctr.,
  No. F041119, 2003 WL 22138028 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2003)
  Finality of arbitral award
• Kovatch v. California Cas. Mgmt. Co.,
  65 Cal. App. 4th 1256 (1998)
  Wrongful termination (amicus)
• Maglica v. Maglica,
  66 Cal. App. 4th 442 (1998)
  Property-sharing agreement between unmarried cohabitants
• Mangini v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co.,
  7 Cal.4th 1057 (1994)
  Unfair business practices (amicus)
• Neary v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.,
  3 Cal.4th 273 (1992)
  Jurisdiction over terms of settlement
• Nutmeg Sec., Ltd. v. Am. Diversified Holdings, Inc.,
  92 Cal. App. 4th 1435 (2001)
  Duty of outside auditors to client's pre-IPO investment advisor
• Oakland-Alameda Coliseum Auth. v. CC Partners, dba The Golden State Warriors,
  101 Cal. App. 4th 635 (2000)
  Enforceability of arbitration clause
• Orrick Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP v. Super. Ct.,
  107 Cal. App. 4th 1052 (2003)
  Causation requirement in legal-malpractice cases alleging inadequate settlement
• Persson v. Hershey,
  No. B163819, 2003 WL 22120975 (Cal. Ct. App. Sept. 15, 2003)
  Finality of arbitral award
• Proposition 103 Enforcement Project v. Quackenbush,
  64 Cal. App. 4th 1473 (1998)
  Constitutionality of statute implementing ballot initiative
• State ex rel. Clements v. Oechsle Int'l Advisors, LLC,
  No. A098793, 2003 WL 22026694 (Cal. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2003)
  Local agency's ability to ratify contract challenged by qui tam plaintiff