Bruce G. Chapman

Bruce Chapman is a partner in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm's Los Angeles office.

Areas of Practice

Bruce’s practice focuses on patent litigation and he also represents clients in trademark, copyright, trade secret, antitrust and other intellectual property related litigation. His litigation experience includes representing companies in the many areas of advanced technologies such as medical devices, electronics, software, biotechnology, automotive, and telecommunications. He has represented clients in more than 75 litigations and appeals, serving as lead trial counsel in more than twenty cases.

• Best Lawyers in America, Best Lawyers, 2013-2019
• Litigation Star, Benchmark Litigation, 2017-2019
• Top IP Attorneys in California, Daily Journal, 2016
• Top 75 IP Litigator, Daily Journal, 2010
• Southern California Super Lawyer, Super Lawyers, 2004-2005, 2010-2017
• Best Lawyers in America, "Lawyer of the Year" for patent litigation 2016

• Currently representing R&D Telecommunications Company in patent litigation relating to location based services for mobile devices. Enovsys LLC v. AT&T Mobility and AT&T Mobility II (C.D.Cal.)
• Currently representing manufacturer of cochlear implants against allegation that the companies’ cochlear implant infringe multiple patents. The Alfred E. Mann Foundation for Scientific Research v. Cochlear Limited and Cochlear Americas (C.D.Cal.)
• Currently representing manufacturer of bone anchored hearing systems in patent litigation against competitor. Cochlear Limited and Cochlear Bone Anchored Solutions AB v. Oticon Medical LLC. (D. Colo.)
• Currently representing manufacturer of electric grid voltage optimization technology against a competitor. Varentec, Inc. v. Gridco, Inc.
• Represented manufacturer of cochlear implants against allegation that the companies’ speech processors infringe a patent regarding noise suppression. Adaptive Sonics LLC v. Cochlear Limited and Cochlear Americas (E.D.Tex.) 
• Represented manufacturer of Bluetooth headset in appeal of a finding that the manufacturer’s patent was invalid and not infringed. Plantronics, Inc. v. Aliph, Inc. and Aliphcom, Inc. (N.D.Cal.) 
• Represented U.K. manufacturer of wound care products in trademark litigation resulting in a favorable judgment and permanent injunction. Manuka Medical Ltd. and ManukaMed Ltd. v. Links Medical Products, Inc. (C.D.Cal. Final Judgment 2012)
• Represented U.K. manufacture of wound care products in litigation regarding misappropriation of trade secrets, resulting in favorable settlement and return of the trade secrets. Manuka Medical Ltd. v. Smith (C.D.Cal. Settled 2012)
• Defended large retailer in patent infringement case by a stapler manufacturer, resulting in invalidation of some of manufacturer’s patents. Accentra, Inc. v. Staples, Inc. (C.D.Cal. Final Judgment 2012)
• Represented manufacturer of LED lighting products in trademark litigation, resulting in a favorable judgment and permanent injunction. Ledtronics, Inc. v. Ledtronics, Inc. (C.D.Cal. Final Judgment 2010)
• Represented manufacturer of LED lighting products in trademark litigation, resulting in a favorable settlement. Ledtronics, Inc. v. Ledtronix (C.D.Cal. Settled 2010)
• Represented drug manufacturer in patent litigation, resulting in a favorable settlement. Centocor, Inc. v. Genentech and City of Hope (C.D.Cal. Settled 2010)

• American Bar Association
• American Intellectual Property Law Association
• Los Angeles County Bar Association