Christopher K. Larus

612.349.0116

Christopher Larus

Christopher K. Larus

Partner

Chair, National IP and Technology Litigation Group
Christopher Larus

Experience

Innovation is the lifeblood of the American economy. For more than 25 years, Chris has helped his clients protect their intellectual property rights. He tries complex patent, trademark, copyright, trade secret, and licensing cases. He represents both plaintiffs and defendants in courts throughout the country, and in both national and international arbitration.

Chris chairs Robins Kaplan’s national Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation practice. He works with clients to protect and monetize intellectual property assets outside of disputes context. He has extensive experience planning and implementing licensing campaigns involving a broad range of intellectual property assets and technologies. He works to tailor licensing and enforcement strategies designed to maximize each clients’ return on innovation.

In addition to directly advocating for his clients, Chris has extensive experience as an arbitrator in both national and international arbitration. He serves as an appointed arbitrator in disputes before the American Arbitration Association (AAA), International Centre For Dispute Resolution (ICDR), World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) and China International Economic and Trade Arbitration Commission (CIETAC). Chris has repeatedly been named a Super Lawyer and listed in The Best Lawyers in America. He is a frequent lecturer and author on intellectual property topics, and is often quoted in the business and legal press. For a full list of his publications, presentations and representative matters, see the listing below.

Chris is also a trusted business advisor and serves on advisory boards for several innovative technology-focused companies. He is married to his wife of 17 years, and is the father of two creative and talented daughters.

+ READ MORE - READ LESS

Chris has served as lead counsel in more than 100 patent cases. Many of these have settled on confidential terms. Additional specific results include:

PCT International, Inc. v. Holland Electronics, LLC (D. Ariz. No. 12-cv-01797): Lead trial lawyer for telecommunications equipment supplier PCT in patent infringement case against competitor Holland Electronics, a division of Amphenol Corporation.  Following a four-week trial in the District of Arizona, the jury found that 60 separate Holland products infringed PCT’s patent and rejected Holland’s challenges to validity of the patent.  The District Court upheld the jury’s verdict and award of damages, and issued a permanent injunction prohibiting sales of Holland’s infringing products.  Also served as lead counsel on defending verdict and injunction on appeal.  Obtained summary affirmance by the Federal Circuit rejecting all of infringer’s claims on appeal.

Louis Vuitton Moet Hennessy v. Phillips Beverage Company: Trial counsel for defendant in $100 Million international arbitration proceeding brought by French multi-national seller of luxury goods arising from alleged breach of trademark license agreement; obtained a complete defense verdict and an award of fees from unanimous three member panel.

Graco Minnesota, Inc. v. TTI, Inc.:  Lead counsel for patent holder case involving spray pump technology.  Case settled on confidential terms follow successful opposition to motion to transfer venue. 

U.S. Water Services, Inc. v. Chem-Treat, Inc.:  Co-Counsel for defendant in patent infringement and trade secret dispute involving ethanol processing technologies. Obtained summary of non-infringement. 

Nilfisk-Advance v. Tennant Corp.:  Lead counsel for claimant in false advertising dispute before the National Advertising Division (“NAD”). Arbitration panel issued order in favor of client finding that challenged advertising statements were unsubstantiated and should be discontinued. 

U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. 1010 Metrodome Square, LLC: Lead trial counsel for claimant in an arbitration involving property valuation dispute; obtained panel award to client.

Simmons, Inc. v. Bombardier Recreation Products: 
Represented patent holder ina patent infringement case brought by a small family-held business against world's largest manufacturer of motorized recreational products; case settled on confidential terms following Markman hearing and finding of infringement as a matter of law.  (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)

Transclean, Inc. v. Bridgewood Services, Inc.: Trial counsel for patent holder in a case involving claims of patent infringement and false advertising. The jury found in favor of client on all claims after a two week trial; later represented patent holder in defense of verdict on appeal before the Federal Circuit. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)

Lead counsel for trademark holder Best Buy in trademark infringement and dilution cases in courts throughout the United States enforcing rights in the BEST BUY and GEEK SQUAD marks, including:

  • Rescuecom Corporation, v. BBY Solutions, Inc., d/b/a Best Buy (N.D. New York 5:09-cv-1149 - Judge Frederick J. Scullin, Jr.)
  • BBY Solutions, Inc., et al. v. Tide, et al. (N.D. Fl. 1:10-cv-00101 - Judge Maurice M. Paul)
  • BBY Solutions, Inc. et al. v. Schwartz, et al.  (E.D. New York 11-cv-00947 - Judge E. Thomas Boyle)
  • BBY Solutions, Inc., et al. v. Karrie-Lee Karreman, et al. (D. Minn. 10-cv-4726 - Judge  Michael J. Davis)

Liberty Bell Equipment Corp. v. Graco Minnesota, Inc.  Lead counsel for defendant in trademark infringement suit.  Case settled on confidential terms following defeat of trademark holder’s motion for summary judgment. 

Great Clips, Inc. v. Hair Cuttery of Greater Boston, L.L.C. and Great Cuts, Inc.: Won summary judgment on behalf of trademark holder Great Clips, Inc. Result affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.

Phillips Products v. R.H. Phillips Vineyard, et al.: Represented defendant in a case involving claims of trademark infringement; case settled on confidential terms following hearing on motion for summary judgment. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)

Mulcahy v. Cheetah Learning LLC: Lead counsel for defendant ina case involving alleged infringement of copyrights in test preparation materials; case settled on confidential terms after the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in favor of client and reversed grant of permanent injunction. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)

Amstel Music, et al. v. 800 Video, Inc.: Lead counsel for defendant ina case involving claims of alleged infringement of copyrights in musical works; plaintiff dismissed all claims against client during discovery phase with no payment by client. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)

Ag-Chem Equipment Co. v. Ceram Traz Corp.: Trial Counsel for plaintiff in a case involving claims for breach of contract and misrepresentation in which jury awarded verdict in excess of $1 million; later represented client in defense of verdict on appeal before the Minnesota Court of Appeals. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)

Harmon Glass Co. v. Hawkeye Auto Glass, Inc.:Trial counsel for defendant in which jury found in favor of client on claims involving price discrimination and misrepresentation. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP)

Sole arbitrator in multi-million dollar dispute arising from software development and Oracle implementation program. Presided over week long arbitration hearing and numerous pre-hearing disputes under the American Arbitration Association’s Complex Commercial Rules.

Sole arbitrator in multi-million dollar dispute relating to inventorship dispute.  Presided over week long arbitration hearing and numerous pre-hearing disputes under the American Arbitration Association’s Complex Commercial Rules.

Past results are reported to provide the reader with an indication of the type of litigation in which we practice and do not and should not be construed to create an expectation of result in any other case as all cases are dependent upon their own unique fact situation and applicable law.

Chambers USA 2019
Super Lawyers 2019
IP Star 2018
IAM Patent 1000
  • Listed as a "Top Trademark Professional" in the 2019 edition of World Trademark Review 1000
  • Named a “Notable Practitioner in Intellectual Property Law,” Chambers USA (2018-2019)
  • Named to the shortlist of “Outstanding US IP Litigators,” Managing Intellectual Property (2018)
  • Named to the “IAM Strategy 300: The World’s Leading IP Strategists” list, IAM (2017-2019)
  • Named an “Intellectual Property Trailblazer,” National Law Journal (2016)
  • Named a “North Star Lawyer” by the Minnesota State Bar Association for providing at least 50 hours of pro bono legal services (2016)
  • Listed as a "Recommended Individual for Litigation and Licensing (Minnesota)," IAM 1000: The World's Leading Patent Practitioners (2014-2019)
  • Named a “Patent Star” and “Trademark Star,” Managing Intellectual Property (2016-2018)
  • Named an “IP Star,” Managing Intellectual Property (2013-2014)
  • Named one of "Minnesota's Best Lawyers," Best Lawyers in America and Minnesota Monthly (2013)
  • Named a "Litigation Star," Benchmark Litigation (2013 edition)
  • Listed in The Best Lawyers in America (2010-2020 editions)
  • Named one of Minnesota's "Top 40 Intellectual Property Attorneys" by Law & Politics (2007- 2009)
  • Named a "Minnesota Super Lawyer," Super Lawyers (2004, 2006-2019)
Bar Admissions
  • Minnesota
  • New York
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, First Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
  • U.S. District Court, District of Colorado
  • U.S. District Court, Minnesota
  • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin
  • U.S. District Court, Northern District of New York
Education
  • University of Minnesota, J.D., cum laude
  • University of Wisconsin, Madison, B.S.
Professional Associations
  • American Arbitration Association Commercial Disputes Panel, Member
  • World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Center For Dispute Resolution, Member

Quoted in:

  • The Minneapolis Star Tribune
  • The St. Paul Pioneer Press
  • Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal
  • Minnesota Business
  • ABA Journal
  • IP Law 360
  • Intellectual Property Enforcement and Licensing-Understanding the Impact of Medimmune v. Genetech
    Minnesota CLE (February 2007)
  • Establishing Guidelines for Comparative Advertising Campaigns
    American Conference Institute, Achieving Commercial Success in the Face of Food Regulation & Litigation (September 2006)
  • The Arbitration of Licensing and Distributorship Disputes
    Association of University Technology Masters Annual Meeting (August 2006)
  • Open Source Code – Understanding and Managing the Risks
    Minnesota Intellectual Property Law Association Annual Meeting (May 2006)
  • Developing and Assessing Comparative Advertising Campaigns
  • American Conferences Institute, Achieving Commercial Success in the Face of Food Regulation & Litigation (January 2006)
  • Practical Tips for Resolving Advertising Disputes
    Advertising Law in Minnesota (October 2005)
  • Conference on International Intellectual Property Law
    Chair, Center for International Legal Studies, Austria (March 2003)
  • Recovery of Monetary Remedies in Trade Secret Cases
    CLE Program (March 2002)
  • Monetary Remedies Under United States Trademark Law
    Cross-Border Intellectual Property Issues, Center for International Legal Studies (March 2002)

  • Patent Analytics in 2019: State-of-the-Art Tools and Strategies
    2019 Midwest IP Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (September 27, 2019) 
  • What’s New in the World of Corporate IP Monetization?
    IP Dealmakers Forum, New York, New York (November 4, 2019)
  • Patent Analytics Applying Big Data to Patent Practice
    University of Minnesota School of Law, Minneapolis, Minnesota (February 5, 2019)
  • Leveraging Data to Identify Valuable Patent
    IP Dealmakers, New York, New York (November 7, 2018)
  • Recent Changes to U.S. Patent Laws and their Impact on Patent Licensing
    Panelist, Licensing Executives Society, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (November 11, 2015)
  • The Use of Surveys in Patent Litigation
    Webinar, Certified Patent Valuation Analyst (April 14, 2015)
  • Leveraging Surveys in Patent Litigation
    Webinar, Strafford (August 6, 2014)
  • Webinar
    Webinar, Robins Kaplan LLP, Minneapolis, Minnesota (July 25, 2014)
  • Consumer Surveys in Patent Litigation
    Intellectual Property Owners Association, Webinar (June 12, 2014)
  • Academic Technology Transactions: Ensuring That License Negotiations in the Boardroom Maximize Patent Value in the Courtroom
    Association of University Technology Managers, San Francisco, California (February 21, 2014)
  • Strategic IP Monetization: Ensuring That Negotiations in the Boardroom Maximize Patent Value in the Courtroom
    Webcast, MN IP Institute (December 9, 2013)
  • Strategic IP Monetization: Ensuring That Negotiations in the Boardroom Maximize Patent Value in the Courtroom
    CLE Presentation, Licensing Executives Society, Austin, Texas (November 22, 2013)
  • Ensuring That Negotiations in the Boardroom Maximize Patent Value in the Courtroom
    Licensing Executives Society, Minnesota Chapter, Minneapolis, Minnesota (June 18, 2013)
  • Trademark Litigation: A 2013 Update
    The Knowledge Congress, Webcast (March 5, 2013)
  • Hot Topics in District Court Litigation
    Association of Corporate Patent Counsel, Orlando, Florida (January 27, 2013)
  • Patent Litigation 2012
    The Knowledge Congress, Webcast (March 22, 2012)
  • The Use of Consumer Surveys in Patent Cases for Damages Apportionment
    Licensing Executives Society, Anaheim, California (March 13, 2012)
  • The Role of Consumer Surveys in Proving Patent Infringement Damages
    Minnesota CLE, Minneapolis, Minnesota (September 23, 2011)
  • Recent Developments in Intellectual Property Law for Civil Litigators
    Hennepin County Bar Association (December 13, 2010)
  • The Use of Arbitration Provisions in Licensing Agreements - One Size May Not Fit All
    LES Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin (May 7, 2009)
  • Open Source Code: Recent Developments and Practical Implications
    2008 Midwest Computer Law Institute (October 24, 2008)
  • The Use of Arbitration Provisions in Licensing Agreements - One Size May Not Fit All
    Licensing Executives Society, Minneapolis, Minnesota (September 16, 2008)
  • Using Graphics, Animation and Computer Generated Presentations to Teach Complex Patents to Judges and Juries
    Minnesota State Bar Association, Minnesota CLE Conference Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota (September 27, 2007)
  • Alternative Dispute Resolution in Intellectual Property Disputes
    Federal Bar Association, Minnesota Chapter, Minneapolis, Minnesota (March 29, 2007)
  • Medimmune v. Genetech: A Legal and Business Discussion About the Ruling and Business Implications of the Recent Supreme Court Ruling
    Licensing Executives Society, Minneapolis, Minnesota (March 13, 2007)
November 12-14, 2019
September 26-27, 2019
2019 Midwest IP Institute
Minneapolis, MN
September 17, 2019
Back to Top