Paven Malhotra represents leading technology companies and entrepreneurs in their most difficult intellectual property and high-stakes business disputes. His practice covers copyright, patent, and trade secret matters.
In 2024, the Daily Journal named Paven one of the top lawyers in California for his work defending generative AI companies OpenAI and Runway in landmark copyright lawsuits concerning the training of large language and image models. Beyond litigation, Paven has also offered counseling advice to AI companies seeking guidance on a host of legal matters ranging from IP concerns to regulatory risk to partnership agreements. He is a sought-after speaker on AI matters and has delivered talks to the Association of Corporate Counsel, the Bar Association of San Francisco, and other audiences.
Paven also has significant experience litigating patent cases for leading companies, including Google, Netflix, Meta, and Comcast. This includes jury trials in federal court and bench trials before the International Trade Commission.
Clients regularly call upon Paven to handle trade secret and employment-related IP matters. Paven filed one of Meta’s first offensive lawsuits against a former employee for mishandling confidential information concerning its data center infrastructure. In other matters, he has defended former employees accused of breaching employment-related confidentiality obligations. And he helped TSMC win one of the largest trade secrets disputes in California history, which resulted in a nine-figure recovery for his client after a 10-week jury trial.
Showing:
OpenAI Copyright Cases
OpenAI tapped Keker as lead trial counsel in a series of copyright lawsuits that will establish the boundaries of copyright fair use as applied to machine learning. The cases include claims brought by newspapers, authors, and other media outlets alleging that the training and outputs of generative AI large language models infringe their works.
Runway AI Copyright Litigation
Defending generative AI platform Runway in copyright lawsuit filed by illustrators and visual artists alleging use of their works to train image models amounts to copyright infringement. Successfully narrowed the case through motion practice to eliminate claims under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act and California state law claims.
Meta v. Former Employee
Successfully represented Meta in a California state-court lawsuit against a former Meta senior executive for improper retention and use of confidential information. After obtaining a preliminary and permanent injunction, the suit was settled on favorable terms.
Wildseed Mobile v. Google
We are defending Google in a five-patent case brought by Wildseed Mobile in the Northern District of California that accused multiple Google products ranging from YouTube to Google Workspace applications of infringement. We successfully transferred the case, originally filed in Texas, to California and then invalidated three patents on Section 101 grounds. The two remaining patents were subject to complete or partial invalidation at the PTAB.
Two-Way Media Ltd. v. Comcast Cable Communications
We successfully defended Comcast against patent infringement claims brought by Two-Way Media related to multicasting and real-time streaming. We secured a judgment of invalidity under § 101 for subject-matter ineligibility. The Federal Circuit affirmed, and the Supreme Court recently denied cert, thus ending the case with a complete defense win.
Comcast Cable Communications, LLC et al. v. British Telecommunications
We defended Comcast in the District of Delaware against eight patents asserted by British Telecom. The case targeted Comcast’s high-speed data and telephony services and video encryption. We also counter-asserted Comcast patents against British Telecom in the Northern District of Texas. In Delaware, we prevailed on six of the eight patents by way of summary judgment and stipulated dismissals, and thereafter reached a very favorable resolution of both litigations.
Eastman Kodak Co. v. HTC Corp.
We defended HTC in a five-patent investigation brought by Kodak before the International Trade Commission. The action accused dozens of mobile devices of infringing digital imaging patents that covered a range of technologies, including image capture, processing, display, compression and transmission. Consistent with ITC practice, our defense took place on a fast schedule, with a hearing date that was set approximately one year from the start of the investigation and fact discovery being completed in approximately six months. Just prior to the scheduled hearing date, the case was resolved when the Kodak patent portfolio was sold.
Apple Inc. v. HTC Corp
We served as lead counsel for HTC, a Taiwan-based 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 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.
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company v. Semiconductor Manufacturing International Corporation
We represented TSMC against China's then-leading semiconductor manufacturer, SMIC, in the largest trade secret misuse case tried to date. SMIC owed its very existence to technology stolen from our client. Following a jury verdict on liability in favor of TSMC, SMIC agreed to pay $200 million in cash and approximately $130 million of its company stock. The case serves as precedent for the strong protection afforded by California's trade secret statute, even where the actual theft occurred in Asia.
United States v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., et al.
As lead counsel for McGraw Hill and its Standard and Poor’s division, we defended our client from the government’s suit which sought at least $5 billion in penalties under the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act. The government accused S&P of fraud in its rating of hundreds of residential mortgage backed securities (RMBS) and collateralized debt obligations (CDOs) in the years leading up to the financial crisis in 2008. McGraw Hill ultimately settled with the government, and more than 20 states that made similar claims under state laws.
Financial Institution v. Law Firm
We defended a large Nebraska law firm from a multi-million-dollar legal malpractice case in connection with a real estate transaction. The action stemmed from a separate law firm’s failure to adequately protect a financial institution’s priority in a debt transaction where that client was the lender. As a result of the law firm’s failure to ensure the proper paperwork was filed, the client lost its priority to subsequent lienholders when the borrower went bankrupt. Six months after the original law firm’s malpractice occurred, our client was hired and then sued for indemnification by the financial institution as a third party. On the eve of trial, the plaintiff dismissed our client from the litigation.
United States v. Executive
We defended the former owner of a California-based agribusiness company from antitrust, mail fraud and bribery charges brought by the U.S. Attorney’s Office in Sacramento. Prosecutors alleged our client violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by participating in a conspiracy to suppress and eliminate competition in the tomato processing industry by raising and fixing prices, and rigging bids for the sale of tomato paste within the U.S. We were able to negotiate a successful plea agreement.
Discover v. Visa USA, Inc.
We defended Visa USA, Inc. in one of the largest private civil antitrust matters in U.S. history. Discover sued MasterCard and Visa for alleged antitrust violations, claiming that credit card network rules affected member banks’ ability to issue American Express and Discover cards. The case settled on the eve of trial for billions less than Discover claimed. We also defended Visa in a similar action brought by American Express.
12/18/2024
In an article for Westlaw Today and Reuters Legal News, Keker partners Paven Malhotra, Michelle Ybarra, and Matan Shacham analyze the U.S. Copyright Office's report on artificial intelligence and deepfakes. Read more
07/29/2024
Keker, Van Nest & Peters partners connect with the Daily Journal on how the firm has established itself at the forefront of intellectual property within Silicon Valley, particularly in the evolving field of artificial intelligence. Read more
07/24/2024
Paven Malhotra has been featured among Daily Journal's 2024 Top Artificial Intelligence Lawyers in California. Read more
January 21, 2022
This 2-day program, 1/24/22 and 1/25/22, qualifies for 6 hours of general CLE credit, 1 hour of ethics credit, and 1 hour of elimination of bias credit.
Read more
June 19, 2017
Facebook Inc. asked a California federal judge on Monday to toss a putative class action alleging the company misled advertisers with false consumer viewing metrics. Read more
12/01/2015
Paven Malhotra spoke to Healthcare Risk Management about the potential liability of using 3D printing to create models and even surgical devices that are otherwise unavailable. Read more
07/23/2015
Paven Malhotra discusses how inventors and businesses must think of IP from an offensive and defensive perspective. Read more
05/20/2015
Paven Malhotra speaks to Computer World about the dramatic increase in litigation the 3D printing world will face. Read more
05/04/2015
3D printing means a new crop of lawsuits and deals to regulate intellectual property. Keker & Van Nest IP partner Paven Malhotra says that technology making it easier than ever to copy products is already giving rise to a new set of legal issues. Read more
10/15/2014
One name mentioned by virtually everyone the Daily Journal spoke to was Keker & Van Nest. Lawyers at some of the best firms in California said they model themselves after the litigation powerhouse. Read more
10/15/2014
Paven Malhotra will present at the New Strategies, Materials and Applications for 3D Printing conference. Read more
09/17/2014
The Federal Circuit declined to review a ruling in a semiconductor patent dispute that found infringement suits must be thrown out when the co-owner of a patent decides not to participate. Read more
07/31/2014
Paven Malhotra speaks to Forbes about how the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) may be applied in the world of 3D printing. Read more
June 10-12, 2014
Paven Malhotra will present at the 2014 RAPID Conference, which covers the latest developments, trends and techniques specific to additive manufacturing, rapid technologies, 3D printing and 3D scanning Read more
06/09/2014
The Federal Circuit day affirmed a district court's dismissal of a suit brought by the University of New Mexico's patent arm alleging Intel Corp. infringed a patent for lithographic methods used in semiconductor manufacturing Read more
02/26/2014
Paven Malhotra speaks to CIO Magazine about how 3D technology may be a problem for intellectual property owners because of the ease of copying products or designs. Read more
02/17/2014
Paven Malhotra examines the implications 3-D printing holds for intellectual property rights. Read more
06/07/2013
Paven Malhotra comments on the legal implications of 3D printing technology. Read more
05/28/2013
Paven Malhotra discusses the potential intellectual property litigation which may arise from 3D printing. Read more
01/07/2013
New partners all served on several significant trial teams, attended elite law schools, and completed prominent clerkships. Read more
12/13/2011
The firm defends the scion of a legendary California agribusiness family from accusations of racketeering, price-fixing, honest services fraud and obstruction of justice. Read more
11/16/2010
Keker & Van Nest represented Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) Read more
June 02, 2009
Mr. Malhotra worked with the The California First Amendment Coalition to fight the gag order in the highly publicized prosecution of a former BART police officer charged with murder for the shooting death of Oscar Grant III. Read more
- “Report on Deepfakes: What the Copyright Office Found and What Comes Next in AI Regulation,” Reuters Legal News, December 18, 2024
- “Keker Van Nest Is Key Player in Emerging Disputes Over AI,” Daily Journal, July 29, 2024
- “Generative AI and Art,” CLE for the Bar Association of San Francisco, April 23, 2024
- “Generative AI and the Law,” Association of Corporate Counsel, April 9, 2024
- “AI & the Law: Overview of Key Legal Issues,” Association of Corporate Counsel, January 24, 2024
- “How to Pitch for and Work on IP Matters,“ South Asian Bar Association of North America, April 13, 2023
- “Congress May Tear Apart a Law That Launched the Internet,” Investor’s Business Daily, December 24, 2020
- "The Great Scrape: How Website Owners and Data Scrapers Can Avoid Litigation," Legaltech News, 2017
- "What Courts Have Said About the Legality of Data Scraping," Legaltech News, 2017
- "How the 3D Design Community Can Better Protect Its Intellectual Property," 3D Print, 2017
- “How Big Data and IP Intersect,” The American Lawyer, 2016
- "Copying in the Digital Age: Intellectual Property Rights and Additive Manufacturing," RAPID Conference, 2015
- "Intellectual Property Concerns in 3D Printing," New Strategies, Materials and Applications for 3D Printing section of the ATX expo, 2014
- "Trendy 3-D Printing Sure To Produce More IP Fights," The Recorder, 2014
- "3D Printing's Main Legal Battles Will Be Over Intellectual Property," JD Supra, 2013
- "Legal World Braces for 3D Printing Revolution," Daily Journal, 2013
- "Growing Need Exists for South Asian Judges," Daily Journal, 2011