Robert A. Van Nest

I'll research this attorney's background and practice before drafting.

Let me verify the specific tracked cases and PTAB/IPR experience.

Robert A. Van Nest — Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP (San Francisco)

Focus areas. Van Nest is a first-chair trial lawyer whose patent practice centers on complex electronics and life-sciences disputes rather than a narrow technical niche. His tracked matters and reported cases span software and operating-system technology (the decade-long Oracle v. Google Java/Android litigation; Uniloc's software product-activation patent family against Microsoft, Sony, Symantec, Ubisoft and Twitter); wireless and networking standards (Intel in CSIRO v. Intel over 802.11 WLAN patents; the Samsung/NVIDIA ITC chip-patent case; Cisco–Arista patent and copyright litigation; Fortinet SD-WAN); semiconductors and computing architecture (Google's Tensor Processing Unit defense in Singular Computing v. Google; Real Intent in the Synopsis EDA copyright case); internet advertising and search (Suffolk Technologies and British Telecommunications v. Google, I/P Engine); and medical devices (Medtronic heart-valve litigation; Abbott Diabetes Care v. Dexcom continuous glucose monitors). He has also handled flash-memory litigation and high-stakes non-patent IP, antitrust and white-collar matters.

Side preference. He is predominantly a defense-side lawyer for operating companies. The tracked list is 10 defendant-side appearances against a single plaintiff-side representation (Intellectual Ventures I v. Symantec) — consistent with his public profile as the go-to trial counsel for technology defendants such as Google, Intel, Qualcomm, HTC, Medtronic, Samsung and Arista. The one plaintiff-side entry reflects the firm's willingness to take patent-owner work where it fits, but his docket is overwhelmingly defense.

Firm and career context. He joined the firm — then Keker & Brockett — as an associate in 1979, became a partner in 1982, and is now a name partner at Keker, Van Nest & Peters. He has spent essentially his entire career at the firm; he served as a name partner through its earlier iterations as Keker & Van Nest and Keker, Van Nest & Peters. He is not in-house counsel.

Notable outcomes. Reported results include the Oracle v. Google defense (jury fair-use win, ultimately affirmed 6–2 by the Supreme Court in 2021, ending an $8.8 billion claim); the Federal Circuit's 2011 Uniloc v. Microsoft decision, which vacated a $388 million jury award and held the 25-percent royalty rule inadmissible under Daubert; the Federal Circuit's reversal in I/P Engine v. AOL (Van Nest as appellate counsel), invalidating the asserted search-filtering claims and wiping out roughly $30.5 million in damages plus ongoing royalties; a Delaware jury verdict for SanDisk invalidating Round Rock flash-memory patents; an ITC win for Samsung on all three NVIDIA graphics-chip patents; and, most recently, the en banc Federal Circuit's 2025 decision in EcoFactor v. Google (lead counsel), the first en banc rehearing on patent damages since 1995, vacating a $20 million award and tightening the standard for damages expert testimony.

PTAB / IPR. His practice is trial- and appeal-centric; published PTAB records show him listed as back-up counsel on at least one petition (IPR2016-00119) rather than as frequent lead PTAB counsel. The firm, by contrast, is a regular IPR petitioner for clients including Google, Facebook/Instagram, Hulu and Zscaler, and has used IPRs alongside district court litigation in his cases (e.g., Google's petitions in Singular v. Google and Varian's petitions in Best Medical v. Varian).

Bar / education. Admitted in California (1978); J.D., Harvard Law School (1978); B.A., Stanford University (1973). Fellow, American College of Trial Lawyers and International Academy of Trial Lawyers.

Sourcing note: the technology-area characterization for Intent IQ v. Adobe, X One v. Uber and B.E. Technology v. Google rests on the tracked case list; I could not independently verify case-level details for those three matters, and no reliable public source ties him to a specific PTAB lead-counsel role beyond the back-up designation cited above.