Professionals

Back
Guy W. Chambers Partner

One Embarcadero Center
Twenty-Second Floor
San Francisco, CA 94111

T:
415.392.1960
F:
415.392.0827

Guy Chambers focuses on all areas of patent practice, including patent litigation, contested Patent Office proceedings (e.g., inter partes review, interferences and reexaminations), patent prosecution and patent licensing.

Mr. Chambers has been lead counsel in more than 60 intellectual property lawsuits and contested Patent Office proceedings, including actions in U.S. District Courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office. These lawsuits and contested Patent Office proceedings have involved a broad range of technologies, including biotechnology, chemicals, pharmaceuticals, telecommunications, computers, software, electronics and mechanical devices.

Mr. Chambers’ clients have prevailed in nine of his ten trials and all of his inter partes review proceedings. Mr. Chambers has successfully prepared and prosecuted patents in the fields of medical devices, mechanical devices, telecommunications, electronics and biotechnology.

Mr. Chambers has repeatedly been named as a Northern California Super Lawyer® for Intellectual Property Litigation (2012-2014, 2016-2019).

For 15 years, Mr. Chambers was the project manager on a patent services contract with the National Institutes of Health and was formerly a Trial Attorney in the Honors Program at the United States Department of Justice. Prior to joining Sideman & Bancroft, he was a partner in the San Francisco office of Duane Morris LLP, and before that, a partner at Townsend and Townsend and Crew LLP.

Experience

Patent Litigation in District Courts and International Trade Commission

  • f’real Foods LLC et al. v. Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. et. al. (D.Del.).  Obtained a $3.2 million jury trial verdict for plaintiff f’real for infringement of three self-cleaning blender patents.
  • Telemac Corp. v. US/Intelicom, Inc. (N.D. Cal.; 185 F.Supp.2d 1084). Obtained a $7.4 million patent infringement judgment after trial for plaintiff Telemac for infringement of prepaid wireless telephone patents.
  • Aspex Eyewear, Inc. and Contour Optik, Inc. v. Zenni Optical LLC, (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; 713 F.3d 1377). Obtained affirmance of summary judgment dismissal for defendant Zenni for patents directed to magnetically attachable clip-on eyewear.
  • In the Matter of Certain Rubber Antidegradants I (ITC; Flexsys v. Sinorgchem and Korea Kumho Petrochemical Co.). Obtained dismissal after trial for respondent Kumho in ITC investigation involving tire antidegradant patents.
  • In the Matter of Certain Rubber Antidegradants II (ITC; Flexsys v. Sinorgchem and Korea Kumho Petrochemical Co.). Obtained summary judgment dismissal for respondent Kumho in follow-on ITC tire antidegradant patent dispute.
  • Flexsys Americas LP v. Korea Kumho Petrochemical Co., Ltd., Kumho Tire Co., Inc., Kumho Tire USA, Inc. and Sinorgchem Co., Shandong (N.D. Ohio). Obtained summary judgment determination of non-infringement for defendant Kumho involving tire antidegradant patents.
  • Chase/Durus Industries v. Frommelt Industries (D.Iowa; 806 F.Supp. 1381). Obtained contempt judgment after trial for plaintiff Chase/Durus Industries for violation of injunction relating to a rotationally molded door patent.
  • StarSight, Inc. v. United Video, Inc. (D.Okla). Helped plaintiff StarSight prevail in patent trial involving automated television programming guide.
  • Gardco Manufacturing v. Herst Lighting (N.D. Cal.; 820 F.2d 1209). Helped obtain judgment after trial for plaintiff Gardco invalidating lighting fixture patent.
  • Casler v. United States (Court of Claims). Obtained non-infringement judgment after trial for the United States involving electrical connector patent.
  • Bush Industries v. O’Sullivan Industries (D.Del.; 772 F.Supp. 1442). Obtained summary judgment  for defendant O’Sullivan Industries invalidating six design patents for ready-to-assemble furniture.
  • Daniel Huang v. GC Technology, LLC d/b/a/ Phonesuit, Hali-Power Inc. and Case-Ari, LLC, d/b/a Case-Mate (C.D. Cal.) and Hali-Power, Inc. v. mStation Corporation, a/k/a mStation Inc. (N.D. N.Y.). Enforced design patent rights for smartphone battery case manufacturer mophie.
  • Industri AB Thule v. Yakima Products, Inc. (N.D. Cal.). Successfully opposed preliminary injunction motion and obtained favorable settlement for defendant Yakima in patent infringement action involving roofrack designs.
  • Beatty v. Safety Line, Inc. (N.D. Cal.). Obtained summary judgment for accused infringer Safety Line in patent infringement action involving electrical connectors.
  • PharmaStem v. StemCyte (D.Del.). Settled patent dispute on favorable terms for defendant StemCyte involving preservation of fetal umbilical cord tissue.
  • Chromavision Medical Systems, Inc. (Clarient, Inc.) v. Applied Imaging Corp. (S.D. Cal.). Settled patent dispute on favorable terms for accused infringer Applied Imaging involving automated technology for detecting cancer cells in tissue samples.
  • In re Power Saving Integrated Circuits and Products Containing Same (ITC). Represented respondent Integrated Circuit Systems in patent action against Cypress Semiconductor involving power-down circuits.
  • SGS Thomson Microelectronics v. Hyundai Electronics, Inc. (ITC and N.D. Tex.). Represented accused infringer Hyundai Electronics in patent infringement action involving eight DRAM and SRAM patents.
  • NEC v. Hyundai Electronics, Inc. (E.D. Va.). Represented accused infringer Hyundai Electronics in patent action involving more than twenty DRAM and SRAM patents.
  • Texas Instruments v. Hyundai Electronics, Inc. (N.D. Tex.). Represented accused infringer Hyundai Electronics in patent action involving computer protocol and DRAM patents.
  • Digital Equipment Corp. v. System Industries (D.Mass.). Represented accused infringer System Industries in action involving four computer architecture patents.
  • Genprobe v. Microprobe (N.D. Cal.). Represented accused infringer Microprobe in patent  action involving two ribosomal RNA hybridization assay patents.
  • Nike v. Wal-Mart and HYI (E.D. Va.). Represented defendants Wal-Mart and HYI at trial in patent dispute involving athletic shoe designs.
  • Octalinear v. Cyberdyne (C.D. Cal.). Settle software patent dispute on favorable terms.

Contested Patent Office Proceedings

  • Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. f’real Foods LLC (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; 908 F.3d 1328). Defeated obviousness challenge on appeal involving f’real’s self-cleaning  blender patent.
  • Hamilton Beach Brands, Inc. v. f’real Foods LLC (USPTO). Defeated invalidity challenges to f’real’s self-cleaning blender patent portfolio in four inter partes review proceedings.
  • Luciw v. Chang interference (USPTO). Obtained judgment of priority for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in a patent interference against Novartis/Chiron involving first-generation recombinant HIV hybridization assays developed by Dr. Robert Gallo’s laboratory.
  • University of California v. Alza interference (USPTO). Obtained judgment of priority for the University of California in interference involving targeted therapeutic liposomes.
  • Goodchild v. Cohen interference (USPTO). Obtained judgment of priority for the NIH in interference against Hybridon involving phosphorothioate modified antisense compounds.
  • Pastan v. Murphy interference (USPTO). Settled interference on favorable terms for the NIH against Seragen involving hybrid pseudomonas exotoxin molecules.
  • Haseltine v. Wong-Staal interference (USPTO). Settled interference on favorable terms for the NIH against Dana Farber Cancer Institute involving isolation of the tat gene from the HIV virus.
  • Leonard v. Cosman interference (USPTO). Obtained judgment of priority for the NIH in interleukin-2 receptor interference.
  • Kloss v. Filiberti interference (USPTO). Settled interference on favorable terms for Spintek Gaming Technologies, Inc. against Bally Gaming involving coin weighing slot-machine hopper technology.
  • Elsener v. Shin interference (USPTO). Settled interference on favorable terms for Tecan Trading Co. against Applera Corporation involving thermocycler technology.

 Other Litigation Matters

  • Orsetti Seed Co., Inc. v. Halley Vick and Applied Genetics (Cal. Sup. Ct.). Obtained consent judgment against defendants in tomato breeding trade secret action.
  • Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Supreme Office Products (C.D. Cal.). Obtained consent decree for plaintiff Hewlett-Packard in trademark counterfeiting action involving toner cartridges.
  • Hewlett-Packard Co. v. Rapid Office Products (M.D. Fla.). Obtained seizure order and consent decree in trademark counterfeiting action involving toner cartridges.
  • Guangorena v. Nagy and Hansen (Cal.Sup.Ct.). Helped win $200,000 jury trial verdict for plaintiff Guangorena in trade secret misappropriation and breach of contract action involving sailboat winches.
  • Port of Stockton v. Industrial Service Corp. (Cal.Sup.Ct.). Helped win favorable jury trial verdict in commercial lease dispute.
Professional Involvement

AV Preeminent® Peer Review Rated1

Faculty Lecturer, Shifting Strategies in Patent Law, Symposium, Santa Clara Computer & High Technology Law Journal, 2009

Co-chair, Patent Claim Construction, Law Seminars International, 2009

Faculty Lecturer, High Technology in the Courtroom and Intellectual Property Litigation, Continuing Education of the Bar, 1999

Listed in Northern California Super Lawyers®: 2012-2014, 2016-2019

Listed in The Legal Media Group Guide to the World’s Leading Patent Law Practitioners

Listed in The Legal 500

Listed in Marquis’ Who’s Who in American Law

Listed in Bay Area Lawyer Magazine “Best Lawyers in the Bay Area”

Faculty Lecturer, Advanced Patent Licensing, Practising Law Institute, 2001-2010

1 CV, BV and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedures, standards and policies.