Our lawyers have experience working with start-up and established businesses as well as solo inventors in many industries.
Tel: +1.818.584.6460
Fax: +1.818.574.6026
University of California Davis SOL (King Hall), J.D.
Witkin Award Recipient
University of California Los Angeles, B.S.
Mathematics/Applied Science; Specialization in Computing
UC Regents Scholar, Allergan Pharmaceuticals Scholarship Award Winner
California State Bar
U.S. Patent & Trademark Office
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Kirkland & Ellis, Partner
Thelen LLP
Chris Kao represents technology clients in all aspects of litigation and patent strategy and has litigated technologies relating to wireless communications, RF design, semiconductor manufacturing, and computer networking. Mr. Kao has served as the lead trial counsel for clients in both jury and bench trials. Before joining Lowry Blixseth APC, Mr. Kao was the managing partner at Kao LLP, a partner at Kirkland & Ellis LLP, and an attorney at other prominent San Francisco and Silicon Valley firms.
Business Litigation
Epic Communications v. OEpic Semiconductors, et al. (Cal. Sup. Ct.): Lead counsel for Plaintiff Epic Communications in a case for breach of fiduciary duty and unfair business practices.
Mirelez v. ConocoPhillips et al. (Cal. Sup. Ct.) Lead counsel for real estate investment company. Defended indemnity action arising out of personal injury from a gas station explosion obtaining dismissal after a successful motion for judgment on the pleadings and contractual attorneys’ fees and costs as the prevailing party.
Patent
Brilliant Instruments v. Guidetech LLC (N.D. Cal.): Lead trial counsel for Declaratory Judgment Plaintiff Brilliant Instruments in a patent infringement suit related to precision timing measurement systems for integrated circuits. The jury trial resulting in noninfringement of two key products and total damages that were less than 2% of the total damages sought by the patent owner at trial.
LightMed Corporation, et al. v. Ellex Medical Pty. Ltd. et al. (C.D. Cal.): Lead counsel for Plaintiff LightMed Corporation in claims for business torts, unfair competition, and declaratory relief relating to Defendant’s false patent assertions against LightMed’s distributors.
RPost v. StrongMail, et al. (E.D. Tex): Lead Counsel for Defendants Verizon, Netflix, Overstock.com, Putnam Investments, ADP Dealer Services, Xerox, Six Continents Hotels, Visa, Mastercard, Equifax, and Thomson Reuters in a patent infringement suit related to email management services.
Crowd Sourced Traffic v. Waze (E.D. Tex; N.D. Cal.): Lead counsel for Defendant Waze in patent infringement suit relating to traffic and navigation application. Successfully moved to transfer case from the Eastern District of Texas. Ultimately convinced Plaintiff to dismiss its case upon threat of sanctions.
Garmin v. Bryton (D. Kan.): Lead counsel for Defendant Bryton in patent infringement lawsuit relating to GPS sports computers. Defeated Garmin’s motion for summary judgment and moved for summary judgment of noninfringement. Case settled favorably shortly thereafter.
Steak n’ Shake and Creative Consumer Concepts v. Kid Stuff Marketing, Inc. (USPTO and Federal Circuit): Successfully defense of Inter Partes Review.
Santa Cruz Bicycles v. Yeti et al. (N.D. Cal.): Lead counsel for Plaintiff Santa Cruz Bicycles in patent infringement suit relating to bicycle suspension systems. Settled case favorably on behalf of client.
Dual Lever v. Santa Cruz Bicycles (D. Ore.): Lead counsel for Defendant Santa Cruz Bicycles in patent infringement suit relating to bicycle suspension systems. Ultimately convinced Plaintiff to dismiss its case.
Vice v. Woodline (N.D. Cal.): Lead counsel for Defendant Woodline in patent infringement lawsuit relating to woodworking technology. Settled case favorably on behalf of client following Early Neutral Evaluation.
Cisco v. MOSAID (D. Del.): Represented DJ Plaintiff Cisco in patent infringement lawsuit relating to Power over Ethernet, ADSL, Cable Modem, Powerline Carrier, and Wireless Communication Technologies.
Intel v. Wi-LAN (N.D. Cal.) Wi-LAN v. Intel, et al. (E.D. Tex.) and Wi-LAN v. Motorola, et al. (E.D. Tex.): Represented Defendants Intel and Motorola in patent infringement suit relating to Wi-Fi, WiMAX and CDMA technologies. Responsible for leading technical team and managing discovery.
Ericsson v. Samsung (ITC, E.D. Tex.), Samsung v. Ericsson (ITC): Represented Samsung in patent infringement suits relating to various cellular and cell phone technologies.
Cisco v. ConnecTel (E.D. Tex.): Represented Defendant Cisco in patent infringement suit relating to router technology.
Visto v. Seven (E.D. Tex.): Represented Defendant Seven Networks in defeating preliminary injunction suit relating to mobile email technology.
Celerity v. Ultra Clean Technologies (N.D. Cal.): Represented Plaintiff Celerity in patent infringement suit relating to semiconductor manufacturing equipment technology.
Copyright/Trademark
By the Glass v. Franmara (N.D. Cal.): Counsel for Plaintiff By the Glass in trademark, trade dress, and copyright infringement suit relating to wine glasses. Settled case favorably for By the Glass after Defendant already agreed to change its trademark and product packaging.
Service West v. Advanced Installation Services (N.D. Cal.): Lead counsel for Service West in case against competitor for software used to manage commercial delivery and warehousing business. Case settled favorably on behalf of client.
Trade Secrets
Epic v. Richwave et al. v. Richwave Technology Inc. (Santa Clara Sup. Ct.): Lead counsel for Epic in case involving alleged breach of a nondisclosure agreement by inter alia, misappropriating Epic’s trade secrets.
Appeals
Epic Communications v. Richwave Technology, Inc. (Cal. Ct. App.): Lead appellate counsel for Epic Communications after previous law firm lost on summary judgment. The appellate panel reversed summary judgment granted to defendant Richwave, holding that a broad release clause in a settlement agreement between Epic and another company did not release Richwave from Epic’s trade secret claims. The opinion is published at Epic Communications, Inc. v. Richwave Technology, Inc. (2015) 237 Cal. App. 4th 1342.
Intellectual Property Law
Patent Law
Trademark Law
Copyright Law
Litigation