For more than 25 years, Rachel Krevans has tried patent disputes involving all manner of products in the electronics, materials science, chemistry, and life sciences areas.
Ms. Krevans served as co-lead counsel in a high-profile smartphone case, leading to a jury verdict of over $1 billion in 2012, and in five other smartphone victories at the International Trade Commission and in district court from 2012 through 2015. Chambers describes Ms. Krevans as “one of the most thorough, calculating and technically astute IP lawyers around.” In 2014, she was inducted into the ChIPs Hall of Fame, a technology-focused women’s IP organization dedicated to promoting the advancement, development, and retention of women in IP-related fields. The American Lawyer has featured Ms. Krevans three times: as a Litigator of the Week in March 2015 and in August 2013, and as its cover story in March 2008. In 2015, Law360 recognized her as an IP MVP, and the National Law Journal named Ms. Krevans a “Litigation Trailblazer.”
Ms. Krevans’ work has involved an assortment of technologies—from DVRs, cable and satellite TV, computer-phone interfaces, electromechanical sensors, and smartphones, to rare earth magnets, catalysts, HIV and cancer treatments, vaccines, and blood and antibody research.
Ms. Krevans’ contentious matters often involve some of the most difficult and complex circumstances. She has co-led trial teams in five trials in the past four years in high-profile smartphone litigation. She has also been a leader in developing new models for winning tough cases, for example, the rare defense jury verdict of invalidity in favor of our client, EchoStar, in the Eastern District of Texas in 2007. Another complex case involved Bayer, who was sued for patent infringement by Abbott Diabetes Care in the Northern District of California. After Bayer won summary judgment on one of the two patents, the case was quickly reassigned to a new judge who set a six-week timeline for a trial on the second patent. Bayer won at trial, prevailing on both patents and all asserted claims, including findings that one of the patents was unenforceable. After a complete defense victory on appeal as well, the Federal Circuit used the case as a vehicle to reconsider en banc the standard for proving unenforceability due to inequitable conduct before the United States Patent and Trademark Office. On remand, Ms. Krevans and her team prevailed again under the new, tougher standard.
Ms. Krevans serves on the firm’s Executive Committee, and has served as chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group and co-chair of the cross-practice Intellectual Property Group. She is perennially recommended as a leading lawyer by third-party directories such as Chambers Global, Chambers USA, The Legal 500, and Best Lawyers. The National Law Journal selected her as one of the 2015 Outstanding Woman Lawyers, California Lawyer honored her in 2008 and 2014 with the prestigious California Lawyer of the Year (CLAY) award in the IP category, she was named one of The Recorder’s Top 50 Women Leaders in Tech Law for 2013, 2014 and 2015, and the Daily Journal has selected her as one of the Top 75 Female Litigators in California from 2008 to 2015 and one of the Top 75 IP Litigators in California from 2010 to 2014. She was selected by her peers for inclusion in the 2015 Best Lawyers in America list, Law360 named her one of the 20 Most Influential Women in IP Law for 2014, Benchmark Litigation included her in the 2013 list of the Top 250 Women in Litigation, and Managing IP included her in the 2013 list of the Top 250 Women in IP. In 2013, Ms. Krevans was named the Chambers USA Women in Law Intellectual Property Lawyer of the Year.
Ms. Krevans was a member of the steering committee for The Sedona Conference Working Group on Markman Proceedings (recommendations published in 2006) and she is currently participating in the Working Group on Patent Damages.
Ms. Krevans holds a B.A. from Dartmouth College and a J.D. from the University of California, Davis. After law school, she clerked for the Honorable Robert Boochever of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
Co-led team that successfully tried a series of high-profile smartphone cases, including a jury verdict of over $1 billion.
Amgen Inc., et al. v. Sandoz Inc., et al.
(Northern District of California). Secured a victory on behalf of Sandoz Inc. in the first case to interpret the Affordable Care Act's Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA). The federal district court ruled in Sandoz's favor on all issues before the court, adopting Sandoz's interpretation of the BPCIA in all respects. The court also denied Amgen's motions urging a contrary interpretation and seeking a preliminary injunction.
Certain Sintered Rare Earth Magnets and Products Containing Same
(International Trade Commission, 337-TA-855). Lead counsel for complainant Hitachi Metals and its U.S. affiliate in a landmark investigation involving 29 respondents before the United States International Trade Commission regarding infringement of certain Hitachi Metals patents by the sale into the U.S. of certain sintered rare earth magnets. Following favorable settlement with virtually all respondents, the investigation was terminated by Hitachi Metals prior to trial.
Abbott Diabetes Care v. Roche Diagnostics Corp. and Bayer HealthCare LLC
(Northern District of California, Federal Circuit Court of Appeals). Represented Bayer HealthCare in one of the most significant patent cases in recent history. The Federal Circuit used the case to address the doctrine of inequitable conduct, which the court described as the “atomic bomb” of patent law because, if proved, it renders an entire patent (and sometimes related patents) unenforceable. The district court had agreed with Bayer that Abbott’s patent was unenforceable, and a three-judge panel of the Federal Circuit affirmed. The Federal Circuit heard the case en banc, affirmed Bayer’s overall victory in the case, and significantly altered the law of inequitable conduct (including adopting a number of changes urged by Bayer). More than 40 amicus briefs were filed, and the United States Patent and Trademark Office filed a brief and argued. On remand, Bayer again prevailed on inequitable conduct, even under the new, tougher standard.
Augme Technologies, Inc. v Yahoo! Inc.
(Northern District of California). Won summary judgment of non-infringement for Yahoo! in a case against Augme Technologies, Inc., relating to display advertising. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling. As a result of the Federal Circuit’s ruling, not only has Yahoo! successfully defended against claims of patent infringement by Augme Technologies, but also prevailed on appeal on its claim that Augme infringes a Yahoo patent, and that certain of Augme’s claims are invalid.
Nazomi Communications v. Sling Media
(Northern District of California). Won summary judgment of noninfringement, recently affirmed on appeal, for Sling Media, Inc. Nazomi Communications accused Sling Media’s Slingbox, a device that allows users to view TV programming from a laptop or smartphone, of infringing Nazomi’s Java hardware acceleration patents. In a combined early (pre-discovery) order on claim construction and summary judgment, the court agreed that Nazomi’s patent claims required not only that the allegedly infringing device contain Java hardware acceleration capabilities, but also that it be configured to take advantage of these capabilities. As the Slingbox was not, it did not infringe Nazomi’s patents.
Confidential Life Sciences Arbitration
In 2011, Ms. Krevans scored a complete victory for our client in high-stakes arbitration. Our client, a multinational corporation in the medical field, was accused of infringing a number of its competitor’s patents. In addition to the direct product competition at the heart of the dispute, the potential damages were well into the nine-figure range. The dispute was subject to an arbitration clause, and a three-arbitrator panel was selected. After the parties conducted fact and expert discovery, they proceeded to a two-week evidentiary hearing. Our client prevailed on either noninfringement or invalidity on every patent—an unusually complete victory for one side in the arbitration context.
Forgent Networks, Inc. v. EchoStar Communications Corporation, et al.
(Eastern District of Texas). Obtained jury verdict of invalidity for our client, EchoStar, in a patent lawsuit brought by Forgent against essentially the entire cable and satellite television industry, including EchoStar, DIRECTV, Comcast, Cable One, Time Warner, Charter, and Cox, as well as Motorola, Digeo, and Scientific Atlanta. The Tyler, Texas case involved patents allegedly directed to DVRs. All defendants other than EchoStar settled shortly before trial. EchoStar then chose to challenge only validity. In May 2007, after approximately an hour of deliberations, an eight-person jury found all of the asserted claims invalid as anticipated, obvious, and lacking an adequate written description. We believe this was only the second defense jury verdict in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas.
Acacia Media Technologies Corp. v. Comcast Corp., et al.
(Northern District of California). Represented EchoStar, the owner of DISH Network, in a closely watched patent infringement case involving a number of patents purportedly relating to digital media transmission. EchoStar was one of multiple defendants in this multidistrict patent infringement action involving distributed audio/video information, and whether major U.S. satellite and cable television providers infringe Acacia patents on video-on-demand (streaming video) technology. We assumed a leadership position in developing the defenses against these patents, which, if afforded the broad construction assigned to them by the patentees, could have had far-reaching effects on numerous forms of digital transmission used in many different industries. After multiple rounds of claim construction proceedings, defendants prevailed on summary judgment of noninfringement and invalidity of all patents, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Ronald A. Katz Technology L.P. v. American Electric Power, et al.
(Eastern District of Texas). Represented multiple defendants in a patent case alleging infringement of a large portfolio of interactive telephone/computer interface patents. Obtained an order from Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation consolidating the case with more than 20 other actions, along with transferring it from the Eastern District of Texas to the Central District of California. After a series of claim-construction and summary judgment rulings substantially reduced the risks to our clients, the cases settled.