John W. Keker

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Let me dig deeper into the Uniloc matter and Keker's patent-specific work.

Let me verify the Keker–Uniloc connection and check PTAB/other patent matters.

Professional Summary — John W. Keker (Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP)

Specialty / focus areas. Keker is a career trial lawyer rather than a patent specialist. His documented patent work spans software and software-licensing technology (the product-activation dispute in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp.) and semiconductors (the Xilinx/Altera programmable-logic patent fight, where Keker, Robert Van Nest and Brian Ferrall tried Xilinx's infringement case to a jury verdict). Firm-level patent matters he is associated with through Keker, Van Nest & Peters skew toward computer software, AI/computer architecture, consumer electronics and the life sciences, but his broader practice—antitrust, trade secrets, copyright, and white-collar criminal defense—is the center of gravity. Public practice descriptions (Chambers, World IP Review) place him primarily in trial advocacy and trade-secret/business-tort litigation, with intellectual property as one of several subject areas.

Side preference. The tracked appearance record shows 1 defendant-side patent matter and 0 plaintiff-side, and his verified patent trial result at the firm (Xilinx v. Altera) was on the plaintiff's side of a § 271 case. So although he is not an NPE/PAE plaintiff's-bar lawyer, he is not strictly a defense-side patent litigator either—he has represented both patentees and accused infringers. Where he appears for accused infringers, the client is typically a large operating technology company. The consistent pattern across his career is high-stakes, bet-the-company litigation for corporate and individual clients rather than a fixed plaintiff/defendant patent posture.

Firm context. Keker is a founding partner of Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP in San Francisco, which he co-founded in 1978 (the firm operated as Keker & Van Nest and adopted the current name in 2017). He has spent his entire post-government career at that firm; his prior experience was as a federal public defender (1971–73) and as a prosecutor on the Iran-Contra prosecution of Oliver North. He has not practiced in-house.

Notable cases and outcomes. The tracked patent case, Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (D.R.I.), produced a $388 million 2009 jury verdict that was vacated on JMOL and ultimately went up to the Federal Circuit in Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., 632 F.3d 1292 (Fed. Cir. 2011)—the decision that invalidated the "25 percent rule of thumb" for reasonable-royalty calculations. Caution on sourcing: published accounts and the Federal Circuit record identify Fish & Richardson (Frank Scherkenbach) as Microsoft's trial and post-trial counsel and Mintz Levin as Uniloc's counsel, and I could not independently corroborate a Keker & Van Nest trial role in the matter; I report the appearance as reflected in the tracked case list only. His best-verified personal patent result is the 2000 San Jose jury verdict for Xilinx against Altera. He is also credited with acquiring the acquittal of Patrick Hallinan, the conviction of Oliver North, and the representation of Major League Baseball and S&P in other high-profile matters, and with co-building the firm whose patent/trade-secret trial practice later produced results such as Oracle v. Google, Abbott Diabetes Care v. Dexcom, and the en banc EcoFactor v. Google damages reversal.

PTAB / IPR experience. No publicly verifiable record that Keker personally appears as counsel in IPR, PGR or other PTAB proceedings; his patent appearances are district court and Federal Circuit matters. Not a fact I can confirm from available sources.

Bar / education. Admitted to the California bar in 1971 and to the U.S. Supreme Court bar in 1974; LL.B./J.D., Yale Law School, 1970 (per Martindale and Yale Law Report); A.B., Princeton University, 1965.