People People

People

Ted Chandler
Ted Chandler
Theodore W. Chandler
Partner
ted.chandler@bakerbotts.com
DETAILS
Practices
Intellectual Property
Intellectual Property Litigation
Intellectual Property Management
International Trade Commission (ITC)
PTAB Trials
Trade Secrets
Industries
Life Sciences
Technology
Details
Overview
Overview Admission & Affiliations Experience News
Practices
Intellectual Property
Intellectual Property Litigation
Intellectual Property Management
International Trade Commission (ITC)
PTAB Trials
Trade Secrets
Industries
Life Sciences
Technology

Overview

Ted Chandler has 20 years of experience in IP litigation, including patent, copyright, trademark, and trade secret litigation. Mr. Chandler handles cases involving electronics, software, and medical devices.

Mr. Chandler is registered to practice before the Patent Office where he handles challenges to the validity of patents in reexaminations and Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings in parallel to litigation. He has also tried cases in federal court and the International Trade Commission (ITC) and appealed cases to the Federal Circuit and Ninth Circuit.

Admission & Affiliations

  • State Bar of California
  • Supreme Court of California
  • United States Supreme Court
  • United States Patent and Trademark Office
  • United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Ninth, and Federal Circuits
  • United States Court of Federal Claims
  • United States District Courts for the Central, Northern, Southern, and Eastern Districts of California
  • Past President, Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association (LAIPLA)
  • J.D., Harvard Law School 2000
    magna cum laude
  • B.S.E., Computer Science, Princeton University 1997
    summa cum laude

Experience

  • MicroPairing Technologies LLC v. American Honda Motor Co., No. 2:21-cv-04034-JVS-KES (C.D. Cal. filed May 13, 2021) (Selna, J.). Represented the accused infringer. Patents-in-suit concerned multiprocessor systems. Stayed in 2022.
  • LG Electronics Inc. v. Hisense Elecs. Mfg. Co. of Am. Corp. et al., No. 2:19-cv-09474 (C.D. Cal. filed Nov. 4, 2019) (Kronstadt, J.). Represented the patent owner. Patents-in-suit concerned digital televisions. Settled in 2021.
  • Yardi Systems, Inc. v. Property Solutions International Inc., No. 2:13-cv-07764 (C.D. Cal. filed Oct. 21, 2013) (Olguin, J.). Represented the owner of copyrights and trade secrets concerning property management software. Settled in 2019.
  • LG Innotek Co. v. MelodySusie Brand Indus. Co., No. 2:18-cv-06404 (C.D. Cal. filed July 25, 2018) (Wu, J.). Represented the patent owner. Patents-in-suit concerned LEDs. Settled in 2018.
  • Netlist, Inc. v. SK hynix Inc. et al., No. 8:16-cv-01605 (C.D. Cal. filed Aug. 31, 2016) (Staton, J.). Represented the accused infringer. Patents-in-suit concerned memory modules. Stayed in 2017 in light of IPRs.
  • Dynamic Digital Depth PTY LTD v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., No. 2:15-cv-05578 (C.D. Cal. filed July 23, 2015) (Wu, J.): Represented the accused infringer. Patents-in-suit concerned 3D technology. Settled in 2017.
  • Signal IP, Inc. v. Toyota N. Am., Inc. et al., No. 2:15-cv-05162 (C.D. Cal. filed July 8, 2015) (Kronstadt, J.): Represented the accused infringer. Patents-in-suit concerned automotive technologies. Settled in 2017.
  • Panasonic Corp. et al. v. Encore Media Servs., Inc. et al., No. 2:15-cv-02050 (C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 19, 2015) (Kronstadt, J.): Represented the patent owners. Patents-in-suit concerned the DVD standard. Settled in 2016.
  • Core Wireless Licensing S.a.r.l. v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-00912 (E.D. Tex. filed Sept. 26, 2014) (Gilstrap, J.): Represented the accused infringer. Patents-in-suit concerned 2G and 3G standards for mobile phones. Jury trial in 2016.
  • Nexus Display Techs. LLC v. LG Electronics, Inc. et al., No. 2:14-cv-05694 (C.D. Cal. filed July 17, 2014) (Selna, J.): Represented one of the accused infringers. Patents-in-suit concerned video transmission. Settled in 2016.
  • ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-01112 (E.D. Tex. filed Dec. 18, 2013) (Gilstrap, J.): Represented one of the accused infringers. Patents-in-suit concerned digital rights management. Jury trial in 2015.
  • Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-00329 (C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 2, 2012) (Guilford, J.): Represented the accused infringer. Patents-in-suit concerned remote controls for televisions. Jury trial in 2014.
  • Medtronic MiniMed Inc. et al. v. Animas Corp., No. 2:12-cv-04471 (C.D. Cal. filed May 22, 2012) (Lew, J.): Represented the accused infringer. Patents-in-suit concerned insulin pumps. Settled in 2014.
  • Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:11-cv-01408 (W.D. Wash. filed Aug. 25, 2011) (Robart, J.): Represented the accused infringer. Patents-in-suit concerned smartphones. Stayed in 2012.
  • eBay Inc. et al. v. Kelora Sys., LLC, No. 4:10 cv 04947 (N.D. Cal. filed Nov. 2, 2010) (Wilken, J.): Represented two of the accused infringers. Patent-in-suit concerned parametric searching. Summary judgment of invalidity granted in 2012.
  • Boston Scientific Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson et al., No. 3:02-cv-00790 (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 14, 2002) (Illston, J.): Represented the accused infringers and the counterclaim plaintiff. Patents-in-suit concerned balloon catheters. Jury trial in 2007.

Examples of investigations in the International Trade Commission (ITC):

  • In re Certain Artificial Eyelash Extension Systems, Products, and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1226 (USITC filed Sept. 9, 2020) (Bullock, C.A.L.J.): Represented four of the respondents. Patents-in-suit concerned artificial eyelashes. Bench trial in 2021.
  • In re Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-1089 (USITC filed Oct. 31, 2017) (Bullock, C.A.L.J.): Represented the respondents. Patents-in-suit concerned memory modules. Bench trial in 2019.
  • In re Certain Memory Modules and Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-1023 (USITC filed Sept. 1, 2016) (Essex, A.L.J.): Represented the respondents. Patents-in-suit concerned memory modules. Bench trial in 2017.
  • In re Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-501 (USITC filed Nov. 17, 2003) (Bullock, A.L.J.): Represented the complainant. Patents-in-suit concerned packaging for semiconductors. Bench trials in 2004 and 2009.
  • In re Certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drives, Memory Cards, and Media Players and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-619 (USITC filed Oct. 24, 2007) (Bullock, A.L.J.): Represented one of the respondents. Patents-in-suit concerned flash memory. Bench trial in 2008.
  • In re Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-617 (USITC filed Oct. 15, 2007) (Charneski, A.L.J.): Represented three of the respondents. Patents-in-suit concerned digital televisions. Bench trial in 2008.

Examples of proceedings in the Patent Office:

  • IPR2020-01164, -01208, -01335, -01513: Represented the patent owner. Patents concerned digital televisions.
  • IPR2018-00362, -00363, -00364, -00365: Represented the petitioners. Patents concerned memory modules.
  • IPR2017-00549, -00577: Represented the petitioners. Patents concerned memory modules.
  • IPR2014-01082, -01084, -01102, -01103, -01104, -01106, -01109, -01111, -01112, -01146: Represented the petitioner. Patents concerned remote controls for televisions.