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.
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.
- The Minneapolis Star Tribune
- The St. Paul Pioneer Press
- Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal
- Minnesota Business
- ABA Journal
- IP Law 360
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.