Chris Marchese is a principal who has been with Fish & Richardson since 1995. His practice focuses on intellectual property litigation and trials. He has handled patent infringement cases in a wide range of technologies, has successfully first-chaired both jury and bench trials, and has extensive experience with all aspects of patent litigation.
In 30 years of practice, he has litigated and tried utility and design patent cases and trademark and trade dress cases in the U.S. District Courts of the Central, Southern, and Northern Districts of California, the District of Delaware, and at the U.S. International Trade Commission. He has first-chaired multiple jury trials in Los Angeles and San Diego. He has led litigation matters ranging from the most complex to simpler and smaller cases, and he works with clients to manage their cases effectively and efficiently. In addition to patent, trademark, and trade dress litigation, Chris also represents his clients in commercial litigation and in matters involving inter partes review, ex parte reexamination, copyrights, unfair competition, and trade secrets.
As a complement to his litigation practice, Chris also performs patent portfolio analyses for his clients, has prepared and prosecuted numerous patent and trademark applications, and has handled trademark opposition and cancellation proceedings.
Chris’s technical expertise and knowledge extends to a wide variety of technologies that include:
- Video, image, and audio processing
- Wireless communications
- Semiconductors and integrated circuitry
- Computer networking
- Mechanical devices
- Chemistry and Cleantech
In 1999, Chris 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., Asetek 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. He also co-authors a blog focused on patent damages. In addition, he has written numerous law review articles on subjects that include patent damages and federal jurisdiction. His articles have been cited by the Federal Circuit and U.S. district courts.
Chris is also active in pro bono matters. He is on the board of directors for the California Lawyers for the Arts (CLA) and has worked on a number of matters referred to the firm by CLA.
Chris was an adjunct professor of law at the University of San Diego from 2012 to 2015, where he taught a course on patent litigation with other Fish principals.
- “Marking and Pre-Suit Damages: What Happens when a Failure to Mark Is Followed by a Period of Compliance with the Marking Statute?,” Fish Litigation Blog (April 26, 2022)
- “Patent Licensing,” The Licensing Journal (March 2022)
- “Does Section 287(a) Apply to Agreements That Do Not Contain a Patent License?”, The Licensing Journal (March 2022)
- “Patent Damages Law & Practice” West Group Publishing (2020-2021)
- Co-author of blog on patent damages, www.patent-damages.com
- “Patent damages & lost profits,” Daily Journal (June 2017)
- “How to Build Daubert-Proof Patent Damages Cases,” Daily Journal (December 2016)
- “Patent Damages,” Corp. Counsel Rev., 17, 3 (1998)
- “Patent Infringement and Future Lost Profits Damages,” Arizona State L.J., 26 (1994)
- “Patent Damages Theories,” Fish Litigation Webinar (May 19, 2021)
- “Hot Topics in Patent Damages for In-House Counsel,” Practical Law Webinar (October 2017)
- “Presenting Damages at Trial: How to Relate Your Damages Case to the Jury,” Patent Disputes Forum South, Costa Mesa, California (October 2016)
- “Patent Damages: The Success and Failure of a Theory,” Fish INSIGHTS Webinar (December 2015)
- “Patent Damages,” Fish INSIGHTS Webinar (September 23, 2015 & October, 7, 2015)
- “Case Law Trends for Patent Damages,” Litigation Patent Damages Conference (May 29 & 30, 2014)
- “Dramatic Changes in District Court Litigation as a Consequence of PTAB Proceedings,” Fish Post-Grant for Practitioners Webinar (April 2014)
Favorable jury verdict for Fish client Seirus in Columbia Sportswear North America, Inc. v. Seirus Innovative Accessories Inc. was featured in the Daily Journal’s Verdicts & Settlements column (August 27, 2021)
Patent Infringement Cases
Scramoge v. Anker (C.D. Cal.) – Defending Anker in three-patent case involving wireless chargers.
Omnitracs v. Platform Science (S.D. Cal.) – Defending Platform Science in 7-patent infringement action brought by Omnitracs involving telematics systems.
Ameristar v. RSA (D. Del.) – Lead counsel for Ameristar in DJ patent action filed in Delaware; IPR was filed, and case settled.
UPL v. Tide International (USA) et al. (C.D. Cal.) – Represent Tide companies in defense of chemical patent asserted by UPL.
Rohde & Schwarz v. Tektronix (C.D. Cal., ITC) – Lead counsel for Rohde & Schwarz in series of litigation matters involving oscilloscope hardware and software.
Carl Zeiss AG v. Nikon Corp. (C.D. Cal.) – First-chair for Carl Zeiss and ASML in one jury trial and second-chair in another jury trial in Los Angeles involving digital camera technology. These cases were part of global litigation between Carl Zeiss, ASML, and Nikon that settled in February 2019.
Columbia Sportswear v. Seirus Innovative Accessories (D. Or. and S.D. Cal.) – First-chair for Seirus in jury trial in San Diego obtaining a verdict invalidating Columbia’s asserted utility patent. Federal Circuit affirmed invalidity of the utility patent, reversed summary judgment of infringement for an asserted design patent, and remanded the case for a new trial on the design patent.
Crypto Research v. ASSA ABLOY & HID Global (E.D.N.Y.) – Lead counsel for defendants in 3-patent case related to cryptography.
CH2O v. Meras & Houweling’s (C.D. Cal.) – First-chair for CH2O in jury trial involving chemical technology for treating irrigation systems, obtaining verdict of willful infringement and $12.5M in damages.
Yodlee v. Plaid (D. Del.) – Represented Yodlee in competitor case involving multiple computer software patents. Settled shortly before trial.
ViXS adv. Entropic, DirecTV, Wistron, and CyberTan (S.D. Cal., ITC) – Represented ViXS in district court and the ITC actions, in which 8 patents were asserted, including patents related to the MoCA standard. Settled favorably for ViXS.
LG adv. Sony (C.D. Cal., S.D. Cal., ITC) – Represented LG against Sony in global patent litigation, 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.
Multimedia Patent Trust v. Microsoft No. 06-CV-0684 H (S.D. Cal.) – Represented Microsoft against video compression patent asserted by MPT, seeking 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.) – Represented Microsoft against patents asserted by Lucent/MPT, seeking 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, resulting in judgment for FORE. Named top defense victory by National Law Journal in 2000.
Design Patent/Trademark/Trade Dress/Unfair Competition Cases
Armadillo v. In Dime We Trust and In Dime We Trust v. Armadillo (M.D. FL) – Represent Armadillo in two actions involving trademark, trade dress, unfair competition, breach of contract, copyright, and other claims related to electric guitars.
Columbia Sportswear v. Seirus Innovative Accessories (D. Or. and S.D. Cal.) – First chair for Seirus in two jury trials in San Diego involving a design patent. First trial is discussed above. In the second trial, won defense verdict of no infringement for Seirus.
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.
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.
- Best Lawyer” in Best Lawyers in America (2022-2023)
- “The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners,” IAM Patent 1000 (2022)
- IP Star by Managing Intellectual Property (2013-2021)
- “Stand Out Lawyer” by Acritas (2018)
- Top Lawyer for Litigation by San Diego Magazine (2014-2020)
- Top Rated – AV® PreeminentTM Lawyers in Intellectual Property Law (2013)
- “Appellate Hot List,” National Law Journal (2009)
- Predicate Logic v. Distributive Software, 544 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2008)
- IP Law & Business to “Top 10 Litigation Wins” (2008)
- “Top Defense Victory,” National Law Journal (2000)
- Microsoft v. Lucent
- Bellcore v. FORE Systems
J.D., George Washington University Law School (1992)
B.A., Mathematics, Centre College of Kentucky (1987)
B.S., Electrical Engineering, University of Kentucky (1987)
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
September 8, 2022
Fish & Richardson Receives Top Rankings in 2022 Edition of IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals
August 22, 2022
96 Fish Attorneys Included in the 2023 Edition of The Best Lawyers in America
June 2, 2022
Fish & Richardson Named a Top ITC and Life Sciences Firm by Managing IP; Attorneys Named IP Stars
April 26, 2022
Marking and Pre-Suit Damages: What Happens when a Failure to Mark Is Followed by a Period of Compliance with the Marking Statute?
Authors: Nicole Williams, Chris Marchese
April 19, 2022
Fish Principals Author The Licensing Journal Article "Patent Licensing"
August 19, 2021
Fish Attorneys Recognized in 2022 edition of The Best Lawyers in America
August 11, 2021
Fish & Richardson Secures Favorable Jury Verdict for Seirus in Design Patent Battle Against Columbia Sportswear
July 30, 2021
Does Section 287(a) Apply to Agreements That Do Not Contain a Patent License?
Authors: Nicole Williams, Chris Marchese
June 3, 2021
Webinar Replay | Patent Damages Theories
Authors: Nicole Williams, Chris Marchese
May 19th, 2021 | 1:30 pm EDT
Webinar | Patent Damages Theories
August 4, 2020
32 Fish & Richardson Attorneys Named 2020 “IP Stars” by Managing Intellectual Property Magazine
March 16, 2020
Three Fish & Richardson Attorneys Named to the San Diego Top Lawyers 2020 List