Attorney RecordSan Francisco County
John Watkins Keker · California Lawyer
Can’t reach them, or not sure who to call? Submit your case for review · attorneys who practice in your area read it and may send you terms. Free; your details stay masked until you choose.
John Watkins Keker is on California’s State Bar roll, #49092, admitted in 1971; license status: active as of 22 July 2026. The address of record is in San Francisco, San Francisco County. 4 practice areas are listed in the registry, shown on this page. 50 case appearances are listed on this profile. Registry record updated 24 October 2026; license information comes from the State Bar.
This profile has not yet been claimed. Verify current license status at the State Bar before retaining counsel; the choice is always yours.
Have a business law matter? Submit your case for review.
Open a free case file, choose how attorneys may contact you, and review any terms they send. You decide whom to contact and whether to proceed.
In the last 30 days attorneys have read 11 filed matters on the registry.
Submit your case for reviewLegal information, not legal advice
Registry verification
Verified against official State Bar of California records · record last updated 24 October 2026. Contact information on this page comes from the public record and is shown free, the registry never paywalls it.
1 finding about you awaits your confirmation. Claim your profile to review and add the ones that are yours →
The record
| State Bar number | #49092 |
|---|---|
| License status | Active |
| Admitted | 1971 |
| Law school | Yale Univ |
| Firm | Keker. Van Nest & Peters LLP |
| Location | San Francisco, San Francisco County |
| Registry identity | Official State Bar record |
Diamond members practicing Business Law in San Francisco County
Practice areas
Practice areas are self-reported to the State Bar or added by the attorney; listing one is not a State Bar certification.
Understand your options
Free California worksheets to organize the facts before speaking with an attorney.
Verified profiles & presence
Professional identity links come from public sources or this attorney. Review-site ratings belong to their named source and may cover a firm or office. CAR does not combine them into an attorney rating.
Cases of record
From published opinions naming this attorney as counsel. The attorney has not yet confirmed these records.
| Case | Appeared for | Citation | Court | Decided |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| County of Santa Clara v. Trump | Counsel for the plaintiff | 275 F. Supp. 3d 1196 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 20 November 2017 |
| County of Santa Clara v. Trump | Counsel for the plaintiff | 267 F. Supp. 3d 1201 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 20 July 2017 |
| Sergio Miranda v. Allan Selig | Counsel for the defendant | 860 F.3d 1237 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 26 June 2017 |
| County of Santa Clara v. Trump | Counsel for the plaintiff | 250 F. Supp. 3d 497 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 25 April 2017 |
| Nitsch v. DreamWorks Animation SKG Inc. | Counsel for the defendant | 315 F.R.D. 270 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 25 May 2016 |
| United States v. Sierra Pacific Industries | Counsel for the defendant | 100 F. Supp. 3d 948 | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California | 17 April 2015 |
| City of San Jose v. Office of the Commissioner of Baseball | Counsel for the respondent | 776 F.3d 686 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 15 January 2015 |
| United States v. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. | Counsel for the defendant | 302 F.R.D. 532 | U.S. District Court, Central District of California | 1 August 2014 |
| Eclectic Properties East, LLC v. Marcus & Millichap Co. | Counsel for the respondent | 751 F.3d 990 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 7 May 2014 |
| Alison Galvani v. Patrick Galvani | Counsel for the respondent | 544 F. App'x 790 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 15 November 2013 |
| In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation | Counsel for the defendant | 289 F.R.D. 555 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 5 April 2013 |
| Morning Star Packing Co. v. United States District Court | Counsel for the defendant | 711 F.3d 1142 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 29 March 2013 |
| United States v. Sierra Pacific Industries | Counsel for the defendant | 879 F. Supp. 2d 1117 | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California | 4 June 2012 |
| United States v. Sierra Pacific Industries | Counsel for the defendant | 879 F. Supp. 2d 1128 | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California | 4 June 2012 |
| In re High-Tech Employee Antitrust Litigation | Counsel for the defendant | 856 F. Supp. 2d 1103 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 18 April 2012 |
| United States v. Salyer | Counsel for the defendant | 853 F. Supp. 2d 1014 | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California | 15 February 2012 |
| United States v. Sierra Pacific Industries | Counsel for the defendant | 857 F. Supp. 2d 975 | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California | 18 November 2011 |
| United States v. Salyer | Counsel for the defendant | 814 F. Supp. 2d 984 | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California | 1 September 2011 |
| United States v. Jack | Counsel for the defendant | 263 F.R.D. 640 | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California | 4 January 2010 |
| United States v. Jack | Counsel for the defendant | 257 F.R.D. 221 | U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California | 9 May 2009 |
| MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. | Counsel for the defendant | 535 F. Supp. 2d 1000 | U.S. District Court, Central District of California | 7 February 2008 |
| MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc. | Counsel for the defendant | 535 F. Supp. 2d 1020 | U.S. District Court, Central District of California | 10 January 2008 |
| Bryant v. Mattel, Inc. | Counsel for the plaintiff | 573 F. Supp. 2d 1254 | U.S. District Court, Central District of California | 27 June 2007 |
| Overstock.com, Inc. v. Gradient Analytics, Inc. | Counsel for the appellant | 151 Cal. App. 4th 688 | California Court of Appeal | 30 May 2007 |
| UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Hummer Winblad Venture Partners | Counsel for the defendant | 235 F.R.D. 463 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 20 April 2006 |
| UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Hummer Winblad Venture Partners | Counsel for the defendant | 377 F. Supp. 2d 796 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 31 May 2005 |
| UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Hummer Winblad Venture Partners | Counsel for the defendant | 354 F. Supp. 2d 1113 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 3 February 2005 |
| Collaboration Properties, Inc. v. Polycom, Inc. | Counsel for the defendant | 224 F.R.D. 473 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 13 October 2004 |
| Intertrust Technologies Corp. v. Microsoft Corp. | Counsel for the plaintiff | 275 F. Supp. 2d 1031 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 3 July 2003 |
| Cadence Design Systems v. Avant! Corporation | Counsel for the appellant | 29 Cal. 4th 215 | California Supreme Court | 21 November 2002 |
| Oakland-Alameda County Coliseum Authority v. CC Partners | Counsel for the appellant | 101 Cal. App. 4th 635 | California Court of Appeal | 27 August 2002 |
| United States v. Elcom Ltd. | Counsel for the defendant | 203 F. Supp. 2d 1111 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 8 May 2002 |
| United States v. Zula Jones | Counsel for the respondent | 286 F.3d 1146 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 18 April 2002 |
| United States v. Zula Jones | Counsel for the respondent | 2002 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 3350 | California Supreme Court | 18 April 2002 |
| Maglica v. Maglica | Counsel for the respondent | 66 Cal. App. 4th 442 | California Court of Appeal | 28 September 1998 |
| Jordache Enterprises Inc. v. Brobeck | Counsel for the respondent | 18 Cal. 4th 739 | California Supreme Court | 30 July 1998 |
| Jordache Enterprises, Inc. v. Brobeck | Counsel for the respondent | 18 Cal. 4th 739 | California Supreme Court | 30 July 1998 |
| United States v. Douglas | Counsel for the plaintiff | 996 F. Supp. 969 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 20 February 1998 |
| Gen. Accident Ins. Co. of Am. v. Superior Court of Alameda Cty. | Counsel for the petitioner | 55 Cal. App. 4th 1444 | California Court of Appeal | 25 June 1997 |
| Arntz Contracting Co. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance | Counsel for the appellant | 47 Cal. App. 4th 464 | California Court of Appeal | 17 July 1996 |
| Intel Corporation v. Ulsi System Technology, Inc. | Counsel for the respondent | 93 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 4419 | California Supreme Court | 26 August 1993 |
| Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc. | Counsel for the defendant | 822 F. Supp. 634 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 30 April 1993 |
| Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. Lungren | Counsel for the plaintiff | 809 F. Supp. 747 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 23 December 1992 |
| Intermedics, Inc. v. Ventritex, Inc. | Counsel for the defendant | 804 F. Supp. 35 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 2 September 1992 |
| Micro Motion, Inc. v. Exac Corp. | Counsel for the plaintiff | 761 F. Supp. 1420 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 27 February 1991 |
| Micro Motion, Inc. v. Exac Corp. | Counsel for the plaintiff | 741 F. Supp. 1426 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 28 June 1990 |
| In Re Order to Show Cause | Counsel for the respondent | 741 F. Supp. 1379 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 8 May 1990 |
| In Re Worlds of Wonder Securities Litigation | Counsel for the defendant | 694 F. Supp. 1427 | U.S. District Court, Northern District of California | 29 July 1988 |
| Lee M. Seiler v. Lucasfilm, Ltd., Industrial Light and Magic, Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, George Lucas, Jr., and Joseph E. Johnston | Counsel for the respondent | 808 F.2d 1316 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 26 January 1987 |
| Lee M. Seiler v. Lucasfilm, Ltd., Industrial Light and Magic, Twentieth Century-Fox Film Corporation, George Lucas, Jr., and Joseph E. Johnston | Counsel for the respondent | 797 F.2d 1504 | U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit | 26 August 1986 |
Appearances in published opinions, drawn from public court records. Cases of record are matters of public record and are not a representation of results; past results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Legal information, not legal advice.
Each case name opens the published opinion it comes from. Is a case not this attorney’s? The attorney can claim this profile and mark it as not theirs, which removes it from this page; anyone can report an error through Help & Support.
Third-party recognitions
Third-party recognitions, as published by their issuers. CAR does not rank attorneys. How to read a Chambers recognition.
Chambers Global 2026, Senior Statespeople, Litigation: Trial Lawyers (USA). As published by Chambers and Partners; CAR does not rank attorneys. Firm at the time: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.
Published source · Methodology
Published by Chambers and Partners and shown under licence. Not yet confirmed by the attorney. Last checked 6 October 2026.
Chambers USA 2026, Senior Statespeople, Litigation: General Commercial (California). As published by Chambers and Partners; CAR does not rank attorneys. Firm at the time: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.
Published source · Methodology
Published by Chambers and Partners and shown under licence. Not yet confirmed by the attorney. Last checked 3 October 2026.
Chambers USA 2026, Senior Statespeople, Litigation: Trial Lawyers (USA - Nationwide). As published by Chambers and Partners; CAR does not rank attorneys. Firm at the time: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.
Published source · Methodology
Published by Chambers and Partners and shown under licence. Not yet confirmed by the attorney. Last checked 3 October 2026.
Chambers USA 2026, Senior Statespeople, Litigation: White-Collar Crime & Government Investigations (California). As published by Chambers and Partners; CAR does not rank attorneys. Firm at the time: Keker, Van Nest & Peters LLP.
Published source · Methodology
Published by Chambers and Partners and shown under licence. Not yet confirmed by the attorney. Last checked 3 October 2026.
Are you this attorney? Claim this record to confirm, correct or remove a recognition →
Issuers set their own criteria and may sell marketing products to the firms they recognize. A recognition is not a guarantee of any result. The California Attorney Registry is not affiliated with Chambers and Partners.
On the official record
The employer on the official record is Keker. Van Nest & Peters LLP.
The law school on the record is Yale Law School.
Admitted to the California Bar in 1971 · 55 years on the roll.
Practice areas on the record: Business Law, Consumer Protection, Criminal Defense and Intellectual Property.
50 appearances as counsel in published opinions are on this record.
The address of record is in San Francisco, in San Francisco County, where matters are ordinarily heard at the Superior Court of California, County of San Francisco, seated at San Francisco.
Confirm John Watkins Keker’s license status, bar number #49092, and official disciplinary or administrative history directly with the State Bar of California at apps.calbar.ca.gov before retaining counsel. This profile does not reproduce the complete official history; missing information does not mean no discipline. This page indexes public-record data and identifies verified claims; it does not rate attorney quality or predict results.
Legal information, not legal advice.
On the record nearby
Business Law in San Francisco County: next on the roll
San Francisco County: next on the roll
Listed alphabetically by last name, continuing from this record. Not a recommendation.
For Attorneys
Your profile is already on the roll. Make it yours.
Every California attorney is indexed here from the official State Bar roll, including you. Verify your identity in minutes, present your practice the way you want clients to see it, and unlock the Referral Exchange · send and receive matters with verified attorneys, fees divided 100% between counsel under CRPC 1.5.1.
Claim My ProfileFree to claim · referrals free at every level · identity verified against the State Bar record
Read the record. Then decide.
Describe your matter once, review the verified records, and place the call; the choice is always yours.
Find Your Counsel279,000+ attorney records · 58 counties · Official State Bar records