Chris Ponder

Chris Ponder is a special counsel in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm's Silicon Valley office.

Areas of Practice

Chris is a technology lawyer who represents clients in the digital streaming, enterprise software, gaming, medical device, semiconductor, and telecommunications industries.  He has significant experience in handling complex intellectual property disputes involving patents, trade secrets, and unfair competition.

Chris has litigated cases in federal district courts in California, Delaware, Texas, and Wisconsin.  He has also represented petitioners and patent owners in over thirty proceedings before the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board.

Chris also assists clients with intellectual property licenses, evaluating commercial agreements relating to technology, and developing policies and procedures to protect intellectual property rights.

Experience

• Represented leading game developer in an inter partes review proceeding where the PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable following an unsuccessful IPR challenge by a different game developer
• Represented leading wearable device company in an inter partes review proceeding where the Patent Owner (a Wi-LAN subsidiary) disclaimed the challenged claims after institution
• GENBAND US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented GENBAND in competitor litigation involving trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition counterclaims
• Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Systems, LLC (E.D. Tex.) –Represented defendants against claims of patent infringement involving satellite communications technologies brought by a major military contractor
• GENBAND US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) – Represented GENBAND in patent infringement countersuit brought by a competitor involving telecommunications technologies
• GENBAND US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd. (E.D.Tex) – Represented GENBAND in patent infringement action against a competitor involving VoIP, media gateway, and session border controller technologies
• Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Communications, Inc. (W.D. Wis.) – Represented CaptionCall LLC in competitor litigation involving captioned telephone technology; developed petitioner’s response to plaintiff's secondary considerations evidence in eight co-pending inter partes reviews
• TracBeam LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC (E.D. Tex.) – Defended AT&T against claims that its services infringe a patent directed to location-based services
• Convolve, Inc. v. Dell,Inc. (E.D. Tex.) – Defended Dell Inc. against claims that certain hard drives shipped with its computer systems infringe a patent directed to switchable hard drive acoustic properties
• MedioStream Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (E.D. Tex.) – Defended Dell Inc. against claims that its computer systems allegedly infringe a patent that covers transcoding video into a format for optical discs
• Data Network Storage Corp. v. Hewlett Packard Co., (N.D. Tex.) – Represented Dell Inc. in a patent infringement action involving enterprise iSCSI storage systems
• LG Electronics, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp. (D. Del.) – Represented Whirlpool in a patent infringement action involving refrigerator storage and ice and water dispensing systems
• Assisted client with contracting for independent software support services that comply with their enterprise software licenses
• Provided an opinion to a client analyzing their ownership rights in software works they derived from licensed software
• Assisted client with providing intellectual property disclosures in their shelf offering registration
• Apprised a client of their rights in software code developed for them by a third party contractor

Honors

Northern California Rising Star, Super Lawyers, 2015-2018

Articles

Game Counsel: Gaming and Esports Blog Posts

• "Clash of Game Companies: Lessons Learned from GREE and Supercell Dispute" September 22, 2020

Law of the Level Blog Posts

• "Addressing Video Game Claims Under the Phillips Standard at the PTAB," August 26, 2019 
• "Converting an IPR Loss into a District Court Win," May 8, 2019
• "Caution to Game Companies: PTAB Continues to Preclude PTAB Challenges That It Views As Untimely," April 10, 2019
• "Failure to Launch: Not Identifying the Proper Parties Can Prematurely End an Video Game IPR Challenge," February 5, 2019
• "Challenges in Filing Successful IPR Petitions for Video Game Patents," January 3, 2019 

Media Mentions

Events

Memberships

American Bar Association - Section of Intellectual Property Law