Christopher D. Bright

Christopher also frequently appears before the US Patent and Trademark Office in inter partes reviews (IPR) and the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, where he has successfully argued as lead counsel.

Applying his knowledge in IPR, litigation, and trial and appellate work, Christopher also advises on US patents, including global patent licensing negotiations. Christopher’s industry knowledge includes many years of litigating and negotiating licenses for alleged standard-essential patents (SEPs) on fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms. Further extending his patent knowledge and experience to the corporate area, Christopher also evaluates patent litigation and other patent due diligence issues arising from mergers and acquisitions or other corporate matters. Christopher was recently recognized by Legal 500 for his deep experience in patent litigation, with clients noting that he “provides insightful, forward-thinking advice.”

Christopher has experience across a variety of sectors and industries, with a particular focus on the life sciences and technology sectors. He has litigated and counseled on a broad array of patents in the areas of automotive and mobility products, computers and computer networks, consumer electronics, mechanical devices, medical devices, semiconductors and integrated circuits, and software, including patented technologies concerning cloud computing, Internet of Things, LTE, secured storage, streaming media, USB, WiFi, smart devices, bioprosthetic heart valves, image-guided surgical navigation, needleless medical connectors, ultrasound medical imaging, light emitting diodes (LEDs), semiconductor processing, AI and Big Data driven internet marketing software, antivirus software, educational software, emergency notification software, and product lifecycle management software, among many others.

• Litigation and trial counsel for respondent GE in an ITC investigation directed to LED packages and products containing those packages (Certain Light-Emitting Diode Products, Systems, and Components Thereof (III), Inv. No. 337-TA-1168)
• Lead counsel for patent owner WobbleWorks, which resulted in denial of institution of IPR in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (Ditec Solutions, LLC et al v. WobbleWorks, Inc., IPR2018-01414)
• Lead counsel arguing for intervenor Funai in the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, which resulted in affirmation of the ITC's determination of no Section 337 violation (LSI Corp. v. United States Int'l Trade Comm'n, Appeal No. 2014-1410)
• Trial counsel for respondent Panasonic in an ITC investigation, including examinations of complainants' and respondents' experts, which resulted in a commission determination of no infringement, invalidity, and no domestic industry (Certain Digital Media Devices, Including Televisions, Blu-ray Disc Players, Home Theater Systems, Tablets and Mobile Phones, Components Thereof and Associated Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-882)
• Lead counsel for petitioner Zodiac in an IPR, including argument at final hearing before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, which resulted in invalidity of the instituted claims (Zodiac Pool Systems, Inc., Petitioner v. Aqua Products, Inc., Patent Owner, Case IPR2013-00159)
• Lead counsel arguing for defendant The University of Phoenix in claim construction hearing, which resulted in favorable summary judgment of non-infringement (Digital-Vending International, LLC v. The University of Phoenix, Inc., et al., Case Number 2:09-cv-00555, US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia)
• Trial counsel for respondent Funai in an ITC investigation, including examinations of complainants' and respondents' experts, resulting in a commission determination of no infringement, invalidity, and no domestic industry (Certain Audiovisual Components and Products Containing the Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-837)
• Trial counsel for defendant Yahoo!, including cross-examination of the plaintiff's damages expert witness and direct examination of defendant's damages expert witness and assistance with technical expert direct examinations and cross-examinations, which resulted in a favorable jury verdict of non-infringement; this verdict was included in the National Law Journal's 2012 "Intellectual Property Hot List" (Bedrock Computer Technologies, LLC v. Yahoo!, Inc., Case Number 6:09-cv-00269, US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas)
• Trial counsel for plaintiff Extreme Networks in a three patent case, including examinations of plaintiff’s technical expert witness concerning infringement and validity of the patents in suit, resulting in a favorable jury verdict, permanent injunction, and order to destroy defendant's infringing product inventory (Extreme Networks, Inc. v. Enterasys Networks, Inc., Case Number 3:07-cv-00229-bbc, US District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin)
• Trial counsel for plaintiff Blackboard, including examinations of plaintiff's technical expert witness concerning infringement and validity of the patent in suit, and cross-examinations of defendant's technical fact witnesses, resulting in a favorable jury verdict and a permanent injunction (Blackboard Inc. v. Desire2Leam Inc., Case Number 9:06-cv-00155-RC, US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas)
• Counsel for defendant Extreme Networks, resulting in a favorable jury verdict (Lucent Technologies v. Extreme Networks Inc., et al., Case Number 1:03-cv-00508-JJF, District of Delaware)
• Prepared arbitration briefing that resulted in favorable arbitration ruling for a medical device manufacturer on a patent asserted in the US District Court for the District of Delaware
• Lead counsel at final hearing argument, resulting in successful outcome in an interference in the US Patent and Trademark Office