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 and 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. He won a jury trial in the Central District of California in September 2016, obtaining a verdict for significant damages and willful infringement for a plaintiff-client in a competitor case. 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);
- Wireless communications (including GSM, LTE, and IEEE 802.11);
- 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 Astrazeneca AB v. Apotex Corp., 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.
Patent Infringement Cases
ASSA ABLOY & HID Global adv. Crypto Research (E.D.N.Y.) – Lead counsel for defendants in 3-patent case related to cryptography.
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. Jury returned verdict finding willful infringement, upholding validity of the patent, and awarding $12.5M in damages.
Yodlee v. Plaid (D. Del.) – Counsel for Yodlee in competitor case involving multiple computer software patents. Settled shortly before trial.
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 (ITC) – 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/Design Patent/Contract Cases
Wooden Camera adv. RED.COM (S.D. Cal.)— Lead counsel for Wooden Camera in design patent, trade dress, and unfair competition case involving camera accessories.
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. Case stayed pending Chapter 13 bankruptcy proceeding by defendant; representing Ms. Ince in bankruptcy case
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.
Fish Litigation Blog
March 24, 2017
Federal Circuit Opinion Astrazeneca v. Apotex Cites Patent Damages Treatise
Author: Christopher Marchese
February 23rd, 2017
IPO Chat Channel: Willfulness, Enhanced Damages, and Opinions of Counsel Since Halo.
December 1st, 2016 | 1:00 pm EST
Webinar: Patent Damages Theories
October 19th, 2016 | 8:00 am PDT
2016 Southern California Patent Disputes Forum
December 2nd, 2015 | 1:00 pm EST
INSIGHTs Webinar - Patent Damages: The Success and Failure of a Theory
October 7th, 2015 | 1:00 pm EDT
INSIGHTS Webinar: Patent Damages Replay
September 23rd, 2015 | 1:00 pm EDT
INSIGHTS Webinar: Patent Damages
May 19th, 2011 | 11:30 am EDT
Life Sciences Intellectual Property Summit 2011
April 9th, 2014
Post-Grant for Practitioners: Dramatic changes in district court litigation as a consequence of PTAB proceedings
April 14th, 2010 | 8:00 am EDT
How Is Damages Law Affecting the Patent Market?
May 26th, 2010
Taming the Wild West of Patent Damages: Is There a New Sheriff in Town?
May 20th, 2010
Taming the Wild West of Patent Damages: Is There a New Sheriff in Town?