Christopher M. Lawless

Motorola Solutions, Inc. v. Hytera Communications Corporation Ltd.

• Represented Motorola in a lawsuit alleging misappropriation of trade secrets and copyright infringement against Hytera. Part of the trial team that secured a complete victory, including compensatory and exemplary damages amounting to $764 million, which represented the entire amount requested. 

Godo Kaisha IP Bridge 1 v. Intel Corp.

• Represented Intel in a 9-patent lawsuit involving multiple semiconductor fabrication technologies in the Eastern District of Texas, with parallel litigation in Japan.

Intel Corp. v. Future Link Systems, LLC

• Represented Intel in a 17 patent declaratory judgment suit involving multiple computer technologies in the District of Delaware, and parallel litigation in Germany.

Medtronic v. NuVasive

• Trial team member in jury trial resulting in $101.2 million verdict for client Warsaw Orthopedic, Inc. (a Medtronic entity) in the first phase of a patent infringement dispute with NuVasive, Inc. in the Southern District of California. The jury found that NuVasive’s spinal technology infringed all three of Warsaw’s asserted patents. Case was listed in The Daily Journal “Jury Awards $101 million to medical device maker in patent case” (September 23, 2011); AmLaw Litigation Daily “Kirkland, Dewey Win $101 Million Jury Verdict for Medtronic in Spinal Implant Patent Case” (September 20, 2011); Law360 “Jury Hands Medtronic $101M in Spine Device IP Fight” (September 20, 2011); Bloomberg News “Medtronic Wins $101 Million Award from NuVasive Over Spine Device Patents” (September 20, 2011).

Net Navigation System, LLC v. Cisco Systems, Inc.

• Represented Cisco Systems, Inc. and AT&T Inc. in patent infringement suits in the Eastern District of Texas involving four patents related to networking hardware and software.

Covidien (Mallinckrodt Inc.) v. E-Z-EM

• Trial team member in patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas for client Covidien’s subsidiaries Mallinckrodt Inc. and Liebel-Flarsheim Company. These subsidiaries are global manufacturers and distributors of healthcare products, including medical imaging devices and pharmaceuticals, which alleged infringement by E-Z-EM of patents covering contrast media injectors used in medical imaging procedures. Cross examined non-infringement and invalidity software expert. The case settled just before closing arguments in the June 2010 trial.

Solvay v. Honeywell International Inc.

• Trial team member representing Honeywell in a jury trial in Delaware District Court relating to chemical foam blowing agents. Obtained full defense verdict for Honeywell, invalidating plaintiff's patent-in-suit based upon three independent grounds.

Finjan, Inc. v. McAfee, Inc.

• Represented McAfee, Inc. in patent litigation brought by Finjan, Inc. against McAfee, Symantec, Sophos and Websense.

Akamai, Inc. v. Limelight Networks, Inc.

• The Kirkland team won the appeal of their 2009 victory in the district court for client Limelight Networks, affirming a JMOL of non-infringement after a jury trial on one Akamai patent and summary judgment on two others. This case is profiled in AmLaw Litigation Daily “In Kirkland Win, Federal Circuit Finds No Joint Infringement by Limelight” (December 21, 2010); Reuters Legal “Limelight Wins Round in Akamai Patent Fight” and Law360 “Fed. Circ. Boots $45M Akamai Win Over Internet IP” (December 20, 2010). This case is currently before the United States Supreme Court.

AWR Corporation

• Represented AWR Corporation in software piracy litigation against large foreign telecommunications company.

Level 3 Communications vs. Limelight Networks, Inc.

• Trial team member. In 2010, the Kirkland team won a Rule 36 summary affirmance from the Federal Circuit of their 2009 victory for client Limelight Networks in the Eastern District of Virginia. Level 3 had asserted that Limelight, the second-largest Internet content delivery service provider, infringed more than 200 claims in three patents acquired by Level 3. The team obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on one patent before trial, and a jury verdict of non-infringement on the remaining two patents after a 13-day trial.

Video Game Producer

• Arbitration team member. The Kirkland team was successful in resolving a contentious, yearlong arbitration for a leading U.S. based video game producer. This arbitration was characterized by extensive and accelerated discovery followed by numerous summary judgment motions. The arbitration hearing comprised separate trials for the respective participant’s breach of contract claims relating to patented technology and other intellectual property valued at more than $100 million. Before a decision was rendered by the arbitration panel, the matter settled on confidential terms.

Prior Legal Experience

Law Clerk, Kirkland & Ellis LLP, 2007–2008

Law Clerk, Girardi & Keese, 2006–2007

Chris’ active pro bono practice includes representing Los Angeles urban tenants in habitability cases and TAPP trials for the City of Hermosa Beach.