An intellectual property trial lawyer with a chemistry background, Christine Yun Sauer has advised clients on IP disputes, patent office trials, and licensing monetization efforts across a vast range of technologies and industries. She represents plaintiffs and defendants ranging from individual inventors to Fortune 500 companies in district court, the PTAB, and the International Trade Commission.
Ms. Yun Sauer is particularly known for her experience in advising clients on the value of their patent portfolios in either litigation or licensing efforts. Ms. Yun Sauer is skilled at evaluating patent portfolios for their market impact and applying econometric techniques and thought in order to isolate the technology’s fair value in litigation and licensing. Ms. Yun Sauer further uses this experience to counsel clients on the development, protection, licensing, acquisition, and divestment of patents and core technology.
In addition to representing clients before the U.S. District Courts and PTAB, Ms. Yun Sauer has experience in the International Trade Commission, particularly as it relates to issues arising from international technology standards, such as licensing and FRAND. She advises her clients on how these fast-changing issues impact everything from licensing discussions to litigation strategy.
A leader within Robins Kaplan LLP, Christine serves as chair of the firm’s Racial, Ethnic, and Diversity Working Group, a member of the diversity-focused LEAD Committee, and a member of the Associate Advancement Committee.
Advanced Micro Devices v. LG Electronics: Represented AMD in patent infringement litigation against LGE in the Northern District of California. AMD asserted infringement of nine patents covering a wide array of computer-based technologies critical to today’s high-end consumer electronics products, including patents claiming pioneering inventions in USB, GPU, thermal management, and graphics-related technologies. The case involved over 800 accused products, ranging from televisions to smartphones, BD players, projectors, and smart appliances. The matter was successfully resolved after Markman and prior to summary judgment.
Represented Xerox in the defense of a patent litigation lawsuit brought by U.S. Ethernet Innovations in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas. The case settled after Xerox filed summary judgment and Daubert motions.
Promega Corporation v. Applied Biosystems, LLC, Life Technologies Corporation, and California Institute of Technology: Judge Richard A. Posner ruled in favor of our client, Promega Corporation, in a suit that it initiated against one of its competitors. In an opinion dated June 12, 2013 from the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Judge Posner ruled that certain claims of U.S. Patent No. RE43,096, asserted against Promega, are invalid. Promega prevailed in its arguments that the claims of the '096 patent were invalid due to the breadth of the claim constructions that Defendants sought and obtained. Certain asserted claims were invalid for lack of written description support. While the patent describes an improvement to DNA sequencing, the breadth of the claims encompassed technologies that Caltech did not invent, including the PCR-based methods on which Promega's accused products are based. The asserted claims were additionally invalid as anticipated or obvious in view of the prior art, including a prior art patent to Caltech, which expired years ago. Judge Posner also found certain claims invalid for obviousness type double patenting. Defendants appealed various aspects of Judge Posner’s decision and the judgment. Six days after oral argument, the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed the judgment, awarding Promega a complete victory in the case.
U.S. Ethernet Innovations v. Digi International, Inc. et al.: Defense counsel for Digi International, Inc. in a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas concerning Ethernet technology. Resolved on confidential terms prior to litigation.
Medafor v. Hemostasis: Represented Medafor in a patent enforcement action involving hemostatic powder technology.
Represented one of the world leading hearing aid manufacturers in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and the District of Minnesota. The case involved technology related to adjustable null placement. A settlement was reached at a very early stage in the case.
Trial counsel for the Guardian ad Litem of a child in In re A.M.C. Following a three-day trial a district court granted the Guardian’s petition to terminate the parental rights of the parents' and place the child up for adoption.
Other cases include trial experience to jury verdicts in complex, multi-million dollar patent litigation in multiple forums. Technologies include medical devices and computer hardware and software.
- HCBA Board of Directors, Board Member
- HCBA Diversity and Inclusion Committee, Co-Chair
- HCBA Minority Clerkship Program, Chair
- Everybody Wins! Minnesota Reading Program, Volunteer
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.