Chris Higgins is the co-leader of the 3D Printing group at Orrick and is an experienced patent litigator.  Chris represents clients in federal court actions, in ITC investigations, and in proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  His specialties extend beyond 3D printing and 3D scanning to include technologies such as graphics processing, semiconductors, medical devices, and data encryption.


Chris has developed a global reputation as an authoritative source on legal issues in 3D printing, and has been a featured speaker at 3D printing events around the world. His 3D printing practice includes advising startups and established 3D printing companies on all aspects of intellectual property law, cybersecurity, and technology transactions. Chris helps 3D printing clients grow their businesses and capitalize on market opportunities.

Chris' patent litigation and IPR practice also covers a wide range of other technologies including graphics processing, digital image processing and printing, semiconductor devices and semiconductor manufacturing, data encryption, high-definition television, digital content recognition, and medical devices. Chris has also assisted clients with licensing and patent prosecution related to digital imaging, wireless technology, mobile communication devices, encryption, high-definition television and medical devices.

Prior to law school, Chris worked in the patent department of a medical device company and as an engineer designing electronic components for missiles, projectiles, and bombs.

  •  Some of Mr. Higgins notable patent litigations include:
    • Represents Fujifilm in a patent infringement action brought by Papst Licensing for patents related to digital file transfer technology (D.D.C.)
    • Represented Audible Magic and its 19 customers in cases brought by Blue Spike, LLC, for patents related to digital content recognition technology.  Obtained summary judgment of noninfringement.  Audible Magic asserted counterclaims including unjust enrichment, Lanham Act violations, and derivation.  Audible Magic settled these claims prior to trial and after obtaining the summary judgment of no infringement ruling.  Blue Spike, LLC v. Audible Magic Corp., et al. (E.D. Tex.).
    • Represented Ricoh Company in a patent infringement case involving printing and scanning technology. Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Ricoh Company, Ltd, et al., (D. Del.).
    • Represented Fujifilm in a patent infringement action brought by Princeton Digital Image Corporation related to digital imaging technology. Recently obtained summary judgment for Fujifilm resulting in dismissal of all claims, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Princeton Digital Image Corp. v. Fujifilm North America Corporation (SDNY).
    • Represented NVIDIA Corporation in patent infringement cases brought against Samsung and Qualcomm involving graphics processing technology. In the Matter of Certain Consumer Electronics and Display Devices With Graphics Processing and Graphics Processing Units Therein, Inv. No. 337-TA-932 (ITC); NVIDIA Corporation v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd and Qualcomm, Inc. (D. Del.).
    • Represented Panasonic Corporation in both ITC and District Court patent infringement actions brought by Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc., over patents related to graphics processors and LCD televisions. In the Matter of Certain Consumer Electronics with Display and Processing Capabilities, Inv. No. 337-TA-884; Graphics Properties Holdings, Inc. v. Panasonic Corporation of North America, CA No. 12-211 (D. Del.).
    • Represented defendants Fujifilm, Nikon, Panasonic, and Thomson Video Networks in patent infringement lawsuits involving a patent related to digital image compression technology. FastVDO LLC v. Apple Inc., et al. (D. Del.); FastVDO LLC v. Thomson Video Networks Americas LLC (D. Del.).
    • Represented respondent Panasonic Corporation in an ITC Section 337 investigation related to Blu-ray disc players. In the Matter of Certain Blu-ray Disc Players, Components Thereof and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-824.
    • Represented a manufacturer of PET bottles in a patent infringement case brought by a competitor at both the district court and Federal Circuit that resulted in a summary judgment of invalidity for failure to disclose the best mode, which was upheld on appeal at the Federal Circuit.

Insights

Events

News