Christopher Marchese is a Principal in the Southern California office of Fish & Richardson. His practice focuses on patent litigation, including cases involving computer networking, hardware, software, and chemistry, as well as integrated circuits, compression technology, and wireless communications. Mr. Marchese has substantial experience handling trials, pivotal motions, and other key aspects of patent litigation matters, including summary judgment arguments, tutorials and argument at Markman hearings, and mock jury trials. He has litigated or tried major patent cases in multiple jurisdictions across the United States, including the Central, Southern, and Northern Districts of California, the District of Delaware, District of Massachusetts, the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and the International Trade Commission. In addition to patent litigation, Mr. Marchese also represents his clients in cases involving inter partes review, trademarks, design patents, copyrights, unfair competition, and trade secrets.
As a complement to his litigation practice, Mr. Marchese also performs patent portfolio analyses for his clients, both in connection with potential litigation and for corporate acquisitions. He also has prepared and prosecuted numerous patent and trademark applications.
Mr. Marchese’s technical expertise and knowledge extends to a variety of technologies that include:
- Video compression (MPEG-1, MPEG-2, H.264, and VC-1 standards and related technology);
- Audio compression (including MP3 standard and related technology);
- Speech compression (including G.723.1 standard and related technology);
- Computer networking (including ATM, Ethernet, DOCSIS, and WiMAX technologies);
- Semiconductors and integrated circuitry;
- Software (various operating systems and a wide range of application software);
- Satellite technology; and
- Chemistry and Cleantech.
In 1999, Mr. Marchese co-authored a comprehensive treatise on patent damages that is updated annually and has been cited by the Federal Circuit in Astetek Danmark a/s v. CMI USA Inc. and Lucent v. Gateway, as well as numerous district courts. He has participated in panel discussions and given speeches and seminars around the country on patent damages, and he led a team that developed Fish & Richardson’s patent damages web page. He also co-authors a blog focused on patent damages: www.patent-damages.com. You can follow his blog on Twitter at https://twitter.com/patentdamages. In addition, he has written numerous law review articles on subjects that include patent damages, federal jurisdiction, and the best mode requirement. His articles have been cited by the Federal Circuit and district courts.
ArcSoft adv. e.Digital (S.D. Cal.) – Lead counsel for ArcSoft in five-patent case involving software.
CH2O v. Meras & Houweling’s (C.D. Cal.) – Lead counsel for CH2O in patent case involving chemical technology for treating irrigation systems.
Valerie Ince v. Jack Russell (Cal. State Ct.) – Lead counsel for Valerie Ince in breach of contract and labor code case involving musician management contract.
ScentAir adv. Prolitec (E.D. Wisc.) – Defended ScentAir in multi-patent district court litigation and IPRs involving automated scenting devices.
ViXS adv. Entropic, DirecTV, Wistron, and CyberTan (S.D. Cal. and ITC) – Represented ViXS in parallel cases in district court and the ITC, in which 8 patents were asserted, including patents related to the MoCA standard.
Samsung adv. Ericsson – Represented Samsung in patent litigation against Ericsson involving cellular handset and base station technology, including 3G and LTE technologies.
ArcSoft adv. JVC (C.D. Cal.) – Defended ArcSoft in 14-patent case involving DVD technology.
LG adv. Sony (C.D. Cal., S.D. Cal., ITC) – Represented LG against Sony in global patent litigation spanning the ITC, several district courts, and foreign jurisdictions. Lead teams handling four cases involving more than 20 patents in the Southern and Central Districts of California. Technologies and products included televisions, Blu-ray, cellular telephones, telecommunications, personal computers, and PlayStation.
Raytheon AST v. Teledyne Paradise Datacom and ViaSat (N.D. Cal.) – Represented ViaSat and Teledyne Paradise Datacom in five-patent competitor case involving satellite modems and cancellation technology.
Lucent v. Gateway/Microsoft and Multimedia Patent Trust v. Microsoft cases:
Multimedia Patent Trust v. Microsoft No. 06-CV-0684 H (S.D. Cal.) – Defended Microsoft against video compression patent asserted by MPT. MPT claimed infringement by MPEG-2 and VC-1 decoders and sought more than $400 million in damages. Jury returned verdict of no infringement and awarded no damages.
Lucent and MPT v. Microsoft No. 07-CV-2000 H (S.D. Cal.) – Defended Microsoft against video compression patent asserted by Lucent/MPT, as well as other Lucent patents. Lucent/MPT claimed all MPEG-1, MPEG-2, and VC-1 decoders infringed and sought nearly $1 billion in damages. Jury returned a verdict of no infringement and invalidity and awarded no damages for the video patent.
Lucent v. Microsoft No. 02-CV-2060 B consolidated with 03-CV-0699 B and 03-CV-1198 B (S.D. Cal.) – Defended Microsoft in multi-part lawsuit. In one part, Lucent claimed Microsoft infringed three speech compression patents. Obtained dismissal of two speech patents, one during fact discovery, and the other after completion of expert discovery. Summary judgment granted on third speech patent (Lucent had sought more than $170 million in damages). Federal Circuit affirmed (525 F.3d 1200). In another part, Lucent claimed MP3 software infringed three audio compression patents. Obtained dismissal of one audio patent during fact discovery. District court overturned jury verdict of $1.5 billion on remaining two patents. Federal Circuit affirmed (2008 WL 4349326). Named by IP Law & Business to “Top 10 Litigation Wins” of 2008.
National Law Journal’s 2009 “Appellate Hot List”: Predicate Logic v. Distributive Software (S.D. Cal.) – Lead counsel for Predicate Logic in patent infringement action on software patent. Obtained complete reversal in Federal Circuit of district court decision invalidating claims. Reported at 544 F.3d 1298. Case settled after remand.
National Law Journal’s 2000 “Top Defense Victories”: Bellcore v. FORE Systems (D. Del.) – Defended FORE against assertion of four patents relating to telecommunications technology, including ATM and Ethernet. Bellcore dismissed two patents after expert discovery. On eve of jury trial involving damages claim for more than $200M, court issued favorable Markman ruling on the two remaining patents. Bellcore admitted it could not prove infringement and Delaware court entered final judgment for FORE. Named top defense victory by National Law Journal in 2000. Federal Circuit affirmed on one patent (unreported opinion 2003 WL 1720080). Case settled after remand of remaining patent.
LG v. Kodak (S.D. Cal., W.D.N.Y., ITC) – Represented LG in multi-jurisdiction case involving numerous patents. Global settlement reached.
Intel v. Broadcom (D. Del.) – Represented Intel on four digital video compression patents and a fifth computer networking patent. Jury trial for Broadcom on video patent overturned and new trial granted. Case settled after grant of new trial.
Dimension One Spas v. Coverplay (S.D. Cal.) – Lead counsel for Dimension One on spa cover patent. Won bench trial rejecting defense of inequitable conduct. Case settled after obtaining summary judgment of infringement. Dimension One Spas v. Ouellette (S.D. Cal.) – Lead counsel for Dimension One on spa cover patent. Obtained final judgment of $654,000 in actual damages, $1.3 million in enhanced damages, and $250,000 in attorneys’ fees.
Trademark/Unfair Competition Cases
Wooden Camera adv. RED (S.C. Cal.)— Lead counsel for Wooden Camera in design patent, trade dress, and unfair competition case involving camera accessories.
USP v. Innotek (S.D. Cal.) – Lead counsel for Innotek in two separate actions involving allegations of design patent infringement, trademark infringement, and unfair competition. Cases settled favorably for Innotek.
PeopleWeb v. The PeopleWeb Inc. (TPI) (N.D. Cal., D. Mass.) – Lead counsel for PeopleWeb in domain name and Internet trademark infringement cases. Case settled after defeating TPI’s motions to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction.
Property Assessment Adjusters (PAA) cases (S.D. Cal.) – Lead counsel for PAA in series of trademark infringement and unfair competition cases. Cases settled favorably for PAA.
Adaptec v. Chang (N.D. Cal.) – Represented Adaptec in counterfeiting case involving SCSI adapters and chips. Won seizure of counterfeit adapter boards and chips and worked with U.S. Customs to identify counterfeit products.
September 7, 2016
Fish & Richardson Wins $12.5 Million Jury Award and Willful Infringement for CH2O in Patent Infringement Case
February 23rd, 2017
IPO Chat Channel: Willfulness, Enhanced Damages, and Opinions of Counsel Since Halo.
December 14, 2016
Daily Journal article "How to build Daubert-proof patent damages cases"
Fish Litigation Blog
December 7, 2016
Federal Circuit Opinion Asetek Danmark a/s v. CMI USA Inc. Cites Patent Damages Treatise
Author: Christopher Marchese
June 2, 2016
Fish & Richardson Announces 37 Attorneys Named “IP Stars” by Managing Intellectual Property Magazine
March 6, 2015
Fish & Richardson and California Lawyers for the Arts Hosted Protecting Little Guys' Big Ideas: The California Inventors Assistance Program
February 12, 2015
Fish & Richardson and California Lawyers for the Arts Host Protecting Little Guys' Big Ideas: The California Inventors Assistance Program
July 8, 2014
Fish Announces 39 Attorneys Named “IP Stars” by Managing Intellectual Property Magazine
May 15, 2013
Forty Fish & Richardson Attorneys Named “IP Stars” by Managing Intellectual Property Magazine
August 13, 2010
Runaway Patent Damages Awards: Is Statutory Reform on the Way?