Since 1995, Chris has focused his practice exclusively on intellectual property litigation, representing such clients as Microsoft, SAP, eBay, LinkedIn, and NBC in patent litigation in federal courts nationwide.
Chris has particular experience litigating patents involving computer software, computer hardware, video game technology, and e-commerce. He has argued at numerous claim construction and summary judgment hearings and Federal Circuit appeals. Prior to entering private practice, Chris served as a law clerk to the Hon. William C. Bryson of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Some of the federal courts where Chris has recently litigated include California (Northern and Central Districts), Colorado, Delaware, Massachusetts, New York (Southern District), Oregon, Texas (Eastern and Western Districts), Virginia (Eastern District), and Washington (Western District).
Chris joined Klarquist in 1999 as a lateral associate and became partner in 2003.
J.D. with High Honors, Order of the Coif, Duke University School of Law, 1995
B.S., magna cum laude in Economics, Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, 1992
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
U.S. District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin
Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Law clerk to the Honorable William C. Bryson, 1995 — 1996
Honors & Awards
IAM Patent 1000, 2021-2022
Presentations & Publications
“2020 Patent Law Review,” Oregon State Bar, Feb. 19, 2021
“TC Heartland Decision: Impact on Patent Litigation Landscape Explored,” The Knowledge Group Webcast, January 31, 2018
Claiming Strategies In View of Evolving Damages Law, AIPLA 2016 Electronic & Computer Patent Law Summit, Portland, OR, June 14, 2016
IP Overview Told Through Football Stories, Western MT Bar Ass’n, Missoula, January 21, 2016
Patent Reform Issues for Universities, AUTM Western Region Meeting, Seattle, October 2, 2014
“Discovery Issues in Patent Litigation,” Practicing Law Institute (PLI), Patent Litigation 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009, 2010
“Important Patent Cases of 2008,” Oregon State Bar’s 2009 Intellectual Property Year in Review Seminar, March 12, 2009
“Reexamination of U.S. Patents: An Alternative (or Supplement) to Litigation,” Chartered Institute of Patent Attorneys (CIPA), London, UK, February 13, 2008
“Markman Strategies for the Defense Perspective,” Law Seminars Int’l, San Francisco, January 9, 2008
“Why Web Site Operators Must Comply with the Patent Marking Statute and How They Can Do So,” IPL Newsletter (ABA), Winter 2006
“In the Wake of Knorr-Bremse: Opinions of Counsel are as Important as Ever,” Practicing Law Institute (PLI), Patent Litigation 2005
“Practice Before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit,” Oregon Intell. Prop’y Law Ass’n, April 2004
“A Preview of Willfulness Law After the Federal Circuit’s Knorr-Bremse Opinion,” Oregon State Bar, Intell. Prop’y Section, May 2004
“The Uncertain Future of Enforcing Patents Broadened through Reissue,” 8 Federal Circuit Bar Journal 63 (1998)
“Offer to Sell Amendment Expands Forum Options for Patent Infringement Actions,” National Law Journal, Jan. 26, 1998 at C8
“Color as a Trademark Under the Lanham Act,” 57 Law & Contemp. Probs. 243 (Autumn 1994).
“7 Things to Think About After TC Heartland,” Law360, Co-author May 31, 2017
“International Protection for Trademarks Is Now Easier Under the Madrid Protocol,” Multnomah Lawyer, May 2004
Over the last few years, Chris has served as lead counsel on the following patent litigation cases (represented party underlined):
Kewazinga v. Microsoft (S.D.N.Y.): Leading defense team in case relating to Streetside map imaging.
Big Baboon Inc. v. SAP(N.D. Cal.): Successfully led defense team for SAP in case involving enterprise resource planning software. Won motion to dismiss requiring plaintiff to name accused product, then won summary judgment of invalidity that the SAP product plaintiff accused was prior art to the asserted patent (2019 WL 1791421), then won an award of $188,000 in attorney fees for SAP (2019 WL 5102644). Decisions were affirmed on appeal.
Mira Advanced Tech. Sys., Inc. v. Microsoft (N.D.W.V.): Successfully led defense of Microsoft in case involving Cortana reminder functionality. Litigation was stayed pending inter partes reviews, in which the PTO canceled all claims and the Federal Circuit affirmed. Litigation was then dismissed with prejudice.
Uniloc v. Microsoft (C.D. Cal.): Defending Microsoft in case involving feature of Teams videoconferencing. Litigation stayed pending IPRs.
Nautilus v. ICON (D. Utah): Represented patent owner Nautilus in case asserting four exercise equipment patents. Litigation settled after patents survived inter partes review petitions and two rounds of ex parte reexamination.
Holotouch v. Microsoft (S.D.N.Y.): Led defense team for Microsoft in case relating to holographic imaging. After the Court granted our motion to dismiss one of the two asserted patents, the case was resolved.
Big Baboon Inc. v.Hewlett-Packard (C.D. Cal.): Led defense team for Hewlett-Packard in multi-defendant case involving database systems for end-to-end B2B commerce. Litigation was stayed after Klarquist filed reexaminations on both patents. After all asserted claims were canceled by the PTO, the Court dismissed the case with prejudice.
IXI Mobile v. Microsoft et al. (E.D. Tex.): Led defense of Microsoft in case involving Cortana natural language processing. Case dismissed after successful inter partes review.
DietGoal Innovations, LLC v. Bravo Media, LLC, NBC Universal, Time Inc., & Meredith Corp.(E.D. Tex., S.D.N.Y., Fed. Cir.): Led defense team for clients against patent related to meal planning software. Successfully obtained transfer of cases from E.D. Tex. to S.D.N.Y. and blocked plaintiff’s efforts to consolidate cases before multi-district litigation panel. Filed and won motion for summary judgment that asserted patent is invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101. See 33 F.Supp.3d 271 (S.D.N.Y. 2014). Successfully defended summary judgment before Federal Circuit, which issued a summary affirmance. See 599 Fed. Appx. 956 (Fed. Cir. 2015).
CyberFone v. LinkedIn, NBA, NFL, Netflix, Skype, Twitter, Yelp, et al. (D. Del., Fed. Cir.): Led defense team for group of eight clients in case relating to processing and forwarding of transaction data. Obtained early summary judgment that the asserted patent was invalid pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 101 for failing to claim patentable subject matter. See 885 F. Supp. 2d 710 (D. Del. 2012). Judgment was affirmed on appeal. See 2014 WL 718153 (Fed. Cir. 2014).
Metasearch Systems, LLC v. Priceline.com, Travelocity.com, Expedia, Orbitz, & American Express (D. Del.): Defended group of clients against patents related to metasearching. Case was stayed pending result of covered business method patent reviews instituted by the Patent Trial & Appeal Board, which found all claims unpatentable, resulting in dismissal of the lawsuit.
Entertainment Radio Network v. Time Inc.(D. Or.): Led defense of Time Inc. regarding its trademark The Drive.
Soverain Software v. eBay, PayPal, & GSI Commerce(E.D. Tex.): Defended clients in case involving online shopping carts and other e-commerce concepts. Won summary judgment that all remaining asserted shopping cart claims are invalid as obvious. Case was subsequently dismissed.
Grupo Bimbo v. Snak King Corp. (C.D. Cal.): Defended Snak King against large Mexican corporation asserting trademarks, trade dress, and patents related to rolled tortilla chips. After Snak King won claim construction on key patent claim terms and after Court held hearing on trademark abandonment summary judgment motion, parties reached favorable settlement.
Realtime Data LLC v.SAP & Sybase (E.D. Tex.): Defended SAP and Sybase in case involving data compression. After filing inter partes reviews, case settled.
ADC v. Microsoft (W.D. Wash.): Led defense team for Microsoft in case involving online distribution of videos and software. Litigation stayed pending reexamination of all five asserted patents then dismissed with prejudice after successful reexaminations.
CYVA Research v. eBay, Expedia, Priceline.com, Travelocity.com (E.D. Tex.): Led defense team for cases involving online transaction brokering. Cases settled after motions to dismiss (based on § 101) and to transfer were filed.
EMG Technology v. Microsoft, Costco, Expedia, Travelocity.com, Time Inc. & Time Warner Inc. (E.D. Tex.): Led defense team in cases involving transcoding of HTML-formatted web pages to XML formatted mobile websites and applications.
DDB Technologies v. Time Inc. (W.D. Tex.): Led defense team for Time Inc.’s Sports Illustrated website in case involving computer simulations of live sporting events.
Anascape Ltd. v. Microsoft (E.D. Tex.): Led defense team for Microsoft in 12-patent litigation involving Xbox® game controllers, winning partial stay pending reexaminations and partial summary judgment of non-infringement and no willful infringement (See 2008 WL 7182476).
CRS v. Turner Broadcasting System (D. Del., W.D. Wash.): Led team for Turner Broadcasting System in patent case filed against it in Delaware and in declaratory judgment action filed in Washington, both involving online distribution of video game software.
Motionless Keyboard Co. v. Microsoft (D. Or., Fed. Cir.): Led defense team for Microsoft and won summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity of two patents asserted against Microsoft game controllers. Judgment of non-infringement affirmed on appeal. See 486 F.3d 1376 (Fed. Cir. 2007).
Sklar v. Microsoft (E.D. Tex.): Defended Microsoft in case relating to Windows® operating system user interface features.
Network Commerce v. Microsoft (W.D. Wash., Fed. Cir.): Led defense team for Microsoft and won summary judgment of non-infringement regarding patents relating to online media distribution. Successfully defended the summary judgment win on appeal. See 422 F.3d 1353 (Fed. Cir. 2005).
Big Sky Brewing v. Moosehead (D. Mont.): Co-counsel for Missoula, Montana brewery in action seeking declaratory judgment that sale of its flagship beer Moose Drool Brown Ale does not infringe Canadian brewery Moosehead’s trademarks.