Unrivaled 2025: Robert Van Nest of Keker, Van Nest & Peters

You successfully led a team that in January 2024 defended Google against a more than $1 billion patent infringement lawsuit filed by Singular Computing over Google’s Tensor Processing Units, hardware designed to accelerate machine learning tasks. Following a trial in a Boston federal court, and Google’s invalidation of some claims through inter partes review, the lawsuit settled just before closing arguments. Can you tell us about your trial and settlement strategy?

This was a terrific outcome in a high-stakes trial, defending Google’s custom designed AI-computing hardware against multibillion-dollar patent infringement claims by Singular. From day one, our strategy was to build a trial-ready case demonstrating that Google’s TPU microchips are fundamentally different than the inventions described in Singular’s patents.

Google’s TPUs are application-specific integrated circuits that accelerate computationally intensive workloads. They help scale machine learning operations to improve search, translation, and image recognition more quickly and efficiently.

First, we narrowed the case pre-trial, successfully arguing to remove patent claims that sought several billions of dollars in damages. During trial, we deployed a strategy years in the making. Our well-prepared and technical cross-examinations directly challenged the infringement and damages claims. We presented our witnesses with facts and evidence to demonstrate Google’s innovation in custom designing its TPUs.

As I said, we knew from day one we would take this case to a jury. That focus and discipline resulted in a powerful trial presentation. During the third week of trial and on the eve of closing arguments, on the strength of the case we presented, we reached a settlement.

Can you describe a major hurdle that happened during the course of Singular Computing LLC v. Google LLC. How did you overcome it?

This case posed a significant threat: Singular was founded by a Boston-based inventor whose patents survived review in the USPTO. Google’s technology was fundamentally different than what is described in Singular’s patents, and to show that we had to delve into esoteric concepts of computational mathematics and present them in a way that was meaningful to a jury. At the same time, the case was being tried in front of a Boston jury that might not be sympathetic to our client. We overcame that by building a case that was logical and based in facts and evidence, and then by presenting the case clearly and trusting the jurors to understand it and be fair.

When did you first know you wanted to be a trial lawyer? What clicked for you?

It’s kind of corny, but I grew up in Illinois and admired Abe Lincoln. I thought law would be a great avenue to an impactful life in politics. Before I went to law school, I worked in the General Assembly in Springfield as a House Democratic staffer, and I hated everything about it—late nights, decisions made with no input, everything done for politics, the whole state run by Mayor Daley in Chicago. When I went to law school, I decided instead to become a trial lawyer and pursue a career helping people. I enjoy being in a courtroom and making arguments—and of course I enjoy winning—but the best part of trial practice is working as a team to achieve an objective for a client.

What are the major keys to winning over a jury or a judge?

Juries and judges know if you’re being disingenuous. A straightforward, truthful narrative will have more impact than exaggeration. You also must know the facts of a case inside and out, be aware of your presentation’s weaknesses, and be able to anticipate your opponent’s counter strategies. Time management is also critical. We spend a lot of time revising our presentations. One of our firm’s strengths is a divide-and-conquer approach to trials where everyone on the team has a witness, a cross-exam, or some kind of evidence to present. Everyone becomes an expert and can dive deep into the details to master that piece of the trial presentation.

What is the best advice you give young trial lawyers?

“Mastery of the details is critical, but the details will not help unless you see the big themes and the big picture and connect with the jury at that level.”