Christian Chu is a Principal in the Washington, DC, office of Fish & Richardson. His practice emphasizes intellectual property and technology licensing and litigation, in a vast range of technical areas, including in the areas of chemistry, biotechnology, mechanical and electrical engineering, display technology, and wireless technology. A trial attorney experienced in all phases of litigation, Mr. Chu has tried many cases, including before the United States International Trade Commission where he is considered one of the top patent litigators.
Mr. Chu is active as a writer and lecturer on issues relevant to the intellectual property bar. He was the author of a widely cited article in the Berkeley Technology Law Journal that analyzed statistical trends in Federal Circuit jurisprudence, and contributed written materials for the PRG (Kayton) course on Biotechnology Patents, Licensing and FDA Practice (2004-2005). Mr. Chu is currently serving as the Vice Chair of the Law Clerks & Students Committee of the Federal Circuit Bar Association and was a faculty member at the May 2008 Minnesota Bar CLE seminar "Patent Enforcement and Defense."
Mr. Chu was previously a Judicial Clerk for the Honorable Raymond C. Clevenger, III, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (2002-2003), and for Chief Judge Marilyn L. Huff, United States District Court for the Southern District of California (2001-2002). He also worked as a Litigation Law Clerk and Summer Associate for Fish & Richardson P.C. (1999-2001). Mr. Chu has technical experience as an Associate Consultant for the healthcare and pharmaceutical management consulting firm Axon Group, Inc. (1997-1998), as a Research Associate for Howard Hughes Medical Institute (1995-1997), and as a Research Assistant for the University of California at Irvine (1992-93).
District Court Proceedings
Vizio, Inc. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al. – (D. Md.) – Represented defendant LGE against patents related to forward error correction. Case settled favorably for LGE after district court granted summary judgment in its favor on its licensing defense, and court was considering LGE’s pending motion to dismiss challenging ownership of the patents-in-suit.
SoftVault Sys., Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. – (E.D. Tex.) – Represented defendant Microsoft against patents generally related to software security. Case settled favorably for Microsoft shortly after it filed a motion challenging SoftVault’s ownership and standing to assert the patents-in-suit.
International Business Machine Corp. v. Amazon.com, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented Amazon.com against IBM’s infringement allegations regarding Amazon.com’s popular Internet shopping website. Case settled favorably for Amazon.com soon after it served its invalidity contentions against IBM’s patents.
Seagate Technology v. Cornice – (D. Del.) – Represented plaintiff Seagate Technology in enforcing hard disc drive-related patents, including patents covering magnetic recording media, servo control systems, and internal mechanical components. Case settled favorably for Seagate shortly after oral arguments on claim construction and summary judgment.
Unither Pharmaceuticals v. Herbalife et al. – (N.D. Cal.) – Represented plaintiff Unither in enforcement of patents related to use of L-arginine for treatment of vascular disorders. Case favorably settled for Unither.
AllVoice Computing PLC v. Nuance Communications, Inc. – (S.D. Tex.) – Represented defendant Nuance Communications against patent related to speech-recognition interface software. District court granted summary judgment of invalidity.
Adaptec v. Globalnet et al. – (N.D. Cal.) – Represented plaintiff Adaptec in enforcing and protecting its copyrights and trademarks from infringement and counterfeiting. District court entered judgment in favor of Adaptec against all defendants who refused to settle out-of-court, found certain defendants in contempt for violating preliminary injunctive relief, awarded Adaptec multi-million dollars in compensatory awards and attorney fees awards, and entered a permanent injunction.
Section 337 Investigations – International Trade Commission
Certain Wireless Consumer Electronics Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-853 — Representing LG in ITC investigation against complainants TPL, Patriot Scientific, and Phoenix Digital System and their infringement assertion of a patent related to variable speed system clocks in microprocessors. After a seven-day trial in the ITC, the Administrative Law Judge issued an initial determination in September 2013 in which he found that LG did not infringe the asserted patent claims. Although the complainants challenged the ALJ’s initial determination, the full Commission issued a determination in February 2013 that affirmed the ALJ’s ruling of noninfringement in LG’s favor.
Certain Flat Panel Digital Televisions and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-733) — represented respondents LG Electronics and its subsidiaries against patent infringement claims accusing cellular telephones based on cable transmission technology. Litigation favorably settled after Markman hearing.
Certain Mobile Telephones and Modems (ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-758) – represented respondents LG Electronics and its subsidiaries in proceeding in which complainant Sony Corp. asserted patents related to wireless technology (UMTS/WCDMA, LTE, and CDMA2000), camera technology, voice recording, and caller identification features. Litigation settled favorably after Sony as discovery was closing.
Certain Mobile Telephones and Wireless Communication Devices Featuring Cameras, and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. 337-TA-663) – represented respondents LG Electronics and its subsidiaries against patent infringement claims brought by Eastman Kodak accusing LGE’s popular cellular telephone products. Litigation favorably settled after the evidentiary hearing.
In the Matter of Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices and Products Containing The Same (ITC Inv. 337-TA-631) – Represented complainant Samsung Electronics in enforcing patents related to liquid crystal display. The Chief ALJ found in Samsung’s favor after a full evidentiary hearing on the merits, and the full Commission issued an exclusion order barring the importation of Sharp’s infringing LCD products.
In re Certain Unified Communications Systems and Components Thereof (ITC Inv. 337-TA-598) – Represented complainant Microsoft in enforcing patents related to unified communications systems. After a full hearing on the merits, the ALJ ruled in favor of Microsoft. Litigation favorably settled while on appeal.
Certain Flash Memory Devices and Components Thereof, and Products Containing Such Devices and Components – (ITC Inv. 337-TA-552) – Represented respondents Hynix Semiconductor and its subsidiary against three Toshiba Corp. patents related to flash memory technology. The Hynix respondents prevailed on all patents after a full hearing on the merits, and the full Commission sustained the ALJ’s ruling.
Certain Disc Drives, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same – (ITC Inv. 337-TA-516) – Represented complainant Seagate Technology in enforcing hard disc drive-related patents, including patents related to magnetic recording media, servo control systems, and internal mechanical components. Case settled favorably just days before start of hearing.
B. Braun Melsugen AG et al. v. Terumo Med. Corp. et al. – (Fed. Cir. ) – represented appellant Terumo in appeal related to safety IV catheter. Appeal settled favorably.
Samsung Elects. Co., Ltd. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n & Sharp Corp. et al. – (Fed. Cir.) – Represented appellant Samsung Electronics in appeal related liquid crystal display technology. Appeal settled favorably.
Sharp Corp. et al. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n & Samsung Elects. Co., Ltd. – (Fed. Cir.) – Represented intervenor Samsung Electronics in support of ITC’s determination that Sharp and its subsidiaries infringed Samsung’s patent related to liquid crystal display technology. Appeal settled favorably.
Voda v. Cordis Corp. – (Fed. Cir.) – Represented third-party amicus Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. in support of plaintiff’s request related to the district court’s remedy order. The Federal Circuit clarified the application of the Supreme Court’s opinion in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C.
In re Bilski & Warsaw. – (Fed. Cir.) – Represented third-party amicus SAP America, Inc. in en banc case related to the patentability of business method patents.
MStar Semiconductor v. Int’l Trade Comm’n & Genesis Microchip – (Fed. Cir.) – Represented intervenor Genesis Microchip in support of ITC’s enforcement of Genesis’s patent related to upscaling semiconductor chips. The Federal Circuit affirmed the ITC’s favorable findings in Genesis’s favor.
Symbol Technology v. Lemelson Med., Educ., and Research Fdn. – (Fed. Cir.) – Represented third-party amici in support of adoption of strong prosecution laches doctrine and judgment of unenforceability against the Lemelson machine vision patents. The Federal Circuit affirmed the district court’s application of prosecution laches and declared all claims of the Lemelson machine vision patents to be unenforceable.
June 15, 2016
Fish & Richardson Named to IAM Patent 1000 for National Patent Litigation and Prosecution Practices
June 22, 2015
Fish & Richardson Receives Top Tier 1 National Rankings in Patent Prosecution and Patent Litigation from The Legal 500
February 25th, 2014
ACI 6th Expert Forum on ITC Litigation & Enforcement
September 16, 2014
Fish & Richardson Principal Christian Chu Named a “D.C. Rising Star”
April 15, 2014
Fish Attorney Christian Chu Named Law360 2014 International Trade “Rising Star”
June 21, 2013
FTC announces NPE investigation and possible antitrust action
June 5, 2013
NPE activity still rising, but Obama executive order attempts to curb that
January 1, 2009
New Principals Announced