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.
Over nearly 30 years of practice, he has litigated and tried major patent cases in the U.S. District Courts of the Central, Southern, and Northern Districts of California, 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 demonstrated an ability to lead 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 litigation and patent counseling, Mr. Marchese also represents his clients in commercial litigation and in matters involving inter partes review, ex parte reexamination, trademarks, copyrights, unfair competition, and trade secrets.
As a complement to his litigation practice, Mr. Marchese 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.
Mr. Marchese’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
- 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., 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: www.patent-damages.com. 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.
Mr. Marchese is also active in pro bono matters. He is on the board of directors for the California Lawyers for the Arts (CLA). He has worked on a number of matters referred to the firm by CLA.
Mr. Marchese was an adjunct professor of law at the University of San Diego from 2012 to 2015. He taught a course on patent litigation with other Fish principals.
Co-author of treatise entitled “Patent Damages Law & Practice” (West Group Publishing).
Co-author of blog on patent damages, www.patent-damages.com.
Author of numerous articles, including:
Co-author, “Patent damages & lost profits,” Daily Journal (June 27, 2017).
Co-author, “How to Build Daubert-Proof Patent Damages Cases,” Daily Journal (December 07, 2016). “Patent Damages,” Corp. Counsel Rev., 17, 3 (1998).
“Patent Infringement and Future Lost Profits Damages,” Arizona State L.J., 26 (1994).
Selected Speaking Engagements
October 25, 2017 – Christopher Marchese, “Hot Topics in Patent Damages for In-House Counsel,” Practical Law Webinar.
October 19, 2016 – Christopher Marchese, “Presenting Damages at Trial: How to Relate Your Damages Case to the Jury,” Patent Disputes Forum South, Costa Mesa, CA.
December 2, 2015 – Christopher Marchese, “Patent Damages: The Success and Failure of a Theory,” Fish INSIGHTS Webinar. September 23, 2015 & October, 7, 2015 – Christopher Marchese, “Patent Damages,” Fish INSIGHTS Webinar.
May 29 & 30, 2014 – Christopher Marchese, “Case Law Trends for Patent Damages,” Litigation Patent Damages Conference.
April 9, 2014 – Christopher Marchese, Karl Renner, Dorothy Whelan, “Dramatic Changes in District Court Litigation as a Consequence of PTAB Proceedings,” Fish Post-Grant for Practitioners webinar.
Patent Infringement Cases
Ameristar v. RSA (D. Del.) – Represent Ameristar in DJ patent action filed in Delaware; C.D. Cal. action against Ameristar’s customer, LAX, is stayed pending outcome of the DJ action.
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) – Represented 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.
e.Digital v. ArcSoft (S.D. Cal.) – Lead counsel for ArcSoft in five-patent case involving software. Settled favorably for ArcSoft.
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; jury award on remaining patents was largely undone by the Federal Circuit.
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.
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.
Design Patent/Unfair Competition Cases
Columbia Sportswear v. Seirus Innovative Accessories (D. Or. and S.D. Cal.) – First-chair in jury trial involving design patent; see above for more details
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.
Named to “Best Lawyer” in Best Lawyers in America (2020, 2021).
Named a Top Lawyer for Litigation by San Diego Magazine (2014-2020).
Named a “Stand Out Lawyer” by Acritas (2018).
IP Star, Managing Intellectual Property magazine (2013-2020).
Top Rated – AV® PreeminentTM Lawyers in Intellectual Property Law (2013)
National Law Journal, 2009 “Appellate Hot List,” Predicate Logic v. Distributive Software, 544 F.3d 1298 (Fed. Cir. 2008).
IP Law & Business to “Top 10 Litigation Wins” of 2008, Microsoft v. Lucent. National Law Journal, 2000 “Top Defense Victory,” 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
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
May 22, 2019
Fish & Richardson Announces 32 Attorneys Named “IP Stars” by Managing Intellectual Property Magazine
May 21, 2018
Fish & Richardson Announces 39 Attorneys Named “IP Stars” by Managing Intellectual Property Magazine
March 6, 2018
Fish & Richardson Announces Ranking as a Top National Trademark Practice by Managing Intellectual Property
December 20, 2017
Court Vacates TRO and Denies Motion for Injunction in Columbia-Seirus Patent Battle
October 25th, 2017 | 1:00 pm EDT
Webinar: Hot Topics in Patent Damages for In-House Counsel
October 4, 2017
Fish & Richardson Invalidates Columbia's Omni-Heat Patent for Client Seirus
June 23, 2017
Fish & Richardson Announces 36 Attorneys Named “IP Stars” by Managing Intellectual Property Magazine
May 3, 2017
Two Fish & Richardson Attorneys Named to "2017 Best Attorneys" List
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.