Claudia Wilson Frost is a partner in the Houston office of Orrick, Herrington and Sutcliffe LLP.  She has handled dozens of jury trials in state and federal courts in her 30-plus-year career as a trial lawyer, appellate advocate and strategist. Her experience has been wide-ranging and includes intellectual property and complex commercial litigation, in areas such as oil and gas and energy, telecommunications, technology, financial services and ERISA.

Claudia has been extensively recognized for her practice. Chambers USA notes, “Clients admired [this] 'highly responsive and fabulous strategist' for her powers of ‘brilliant analysis.’  She has a trial background and a depth of appellate experience, with a particular niche in patent infringement.” The Legal 500 has called her “One of Best Known Names in the Field.”  Claudia was named one of Law360's "20 Most Influential Women in IP Law" and was featured in 2016 as a "Trial Pro" by Law360.  She has been included as an IPStar, listed in IAM Patent 1000 and has been recognized in Euromoney's Guide to Leading US Litigators, Guide to Leading World Litigators and Guide to the World's Leading Women in Business Law.  She has been named a Texas Super Lawyer for more than a decade and is in the Top 50 Women Lawyers in Texas and Top 100 Lawyers in Houston.

  • Ms. Frost began her career at Baker Botts in Houston, where she practiced for almost 20 years prior to establishing her own firm. She has occupied leadership positions in her firms throughout her career, and is currently a member of the Firm’s Management Committee and Co-Chair of the Firm’s Global Energy Disputes Group. Claudia has also formed and led a number of organizations designed to improve the profession, including The Center for Women in Law at the University of Texas Law School, of which she is a Founder and member of its Executive Committee. She is also a founding member and Master of the Bench (emeritus) in the Atlas IP Inn of Court in Houston.

    Based on her trial and appellate experience, she has been elected to membership in the American Board of Trial Advocates and in the American Academy of Appellate Lawyers.  She is board certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization in both Civil Trial and Civil Appellate Law.

  • Ms. Frost has substantial litigation and appellate experience in the three sectors on which Orrick focuses – Finance, Energy & Infrastructure and Technology & Innovation. Representative engagements in each of the sectors are set forth below.

    Representative engagements in the financial services sector and in ERISA

    COMMERCIAL LITIGATION

         ERISA Litigation

    • Tittle, et al. v. Enron, et al., filed complaint for and represented cash balance plan lead plaintiffs in class action filed in Enron securities litigation (breach of ERISA fiduciary duty and numerous violations of ERISA)

    • Daniel Robinson, et al. v. CSX Corp., et al., C.A. No. 9:89-cv-163, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division (class action ERISA pension plan spin-off) (dismissed for client based on failure to state a claim)

    • Retained by Amoco and BP to assist them in ERISA litigation arising out of the combination of the two companies and merger of their respective DC and DB plans

    • DeDear, et al. v. Amoco, et al., C.A. No. 3:91-cv-110, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Galveston Division (class action/ERISA benefits dispute) (settled)

    • State of Texas v. MD Physicians, et al., No. 484,769, in the 126th Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas, 1990 (quo warranto proceeding for injunctive relief, penalty and damages) (whether creation of MEWAs sanctioned by ERISA was unauthorized business of insurance under state law) (tried to verdict)

    • Represented 20 companies protesting the Texas Administrative Services Tax levied on the funds maintained in their respective ERISA plans in Texas (Textron, HL&P, Texas Commerce Bank, Pennzoil, Schlumberger, et al.) ($20,000,000 paid under protest) (obtained injunctive relief against State of Texas) (US Dist. Ct. WD TX), tax declared unconstitutional and preempted in E-Systems Inc. v. Pogue.

    • Pamela Chambers Gorman, et al. v. Life Insurance of North America, et al., obtained JNOV in the trial court, the case was then appealed to the Texas Court of Appeals, Houston [1st] District, to the Texas Supreme Court, and to the United States Supreme Court (ERISA breach of fiduciary duty and preemption issues recognized in Texas) (case of first impression) (lead counsel on appeal)

    Recent ERISA Recognitions

    2018 Best Lawyers in America, “Congratulations on also being named the Best Lawyers' 2018 Houston Litigation - ERISA “Lawyer of the Year.”  Only a single lawyer in each practice area in each community is honored as “Lawyer of the Year.”

         Intellectual Property

    • Placemark Investments, Inc. v. Prudential Investments, Inc., C.A. No. 3:13-cv-1719, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (patent infringement)

    • Olivistar LLC v. BNY Mellon National Association, C.A. No. 2:15-cv-320, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement)

    • DataTreasury Corp. v. Wells Fargo & Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:063-CV-72, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement) (represented RBS/Citizens Financial Group)

    • LML Patent Corp. v. JP Morgan Chase & Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:08-cv-448, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement) (represented RBS/Citizens Financial Group)

    • TQP Development, LLC v. Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:08-cv-471, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement) (represented RBS/Citizens Financial Group)

         Business Torts and Contract Disputes

    • Nowlin Savings, et al. v. Robert Walters, et al., C.A. No. 4-87-278-E, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Fort Worth Division (RICO/lender liability/fraud) (represented plaintiff Ben Franklin Savings)

    • Paine Webber v. Cayman Trading, C.A. No. 4:80-cv-679, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (commodities trading/breach of fiduciary duty/breach of contract)

    • Gaile M. Henry v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, C.A. No. 3:81-cv-1338-P, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (Securities Act violations/breach of contract)

    • Sansom Refining Co. v. Drexel Burnham Lambert, before the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit (commodities trading/alleged breach of duties and statutory violations)

    • Gary Steurnagel, et al. v. Fox & Jacobs, et al., No. 80-29,414, in the 234th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas (DTPA/breach of warranty/fraud/lender liability) (represented co-defendant United Savings)

    • William Dennis v. Ben Franklin Savings, in the 129th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas (lender liability)

    • Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v. Trinity-Western Title Co., appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (appeal from sanctions orders against attorneys for Trinity-Western in bank fraud case) (counsel for sanctioned party)

    • Kemper Securities, Inc. v. Conticommodity Services, Inc., retained to handle appeal to the United States Court of Appeals to the Fifth Circuit (RICO, common law fraud and Rule 10b-5 case resulting in an actual damages award of US$3.9 million and a punitive damages award of US$149 million) (counsel on appeal for Kemper)

    Representative oil and gas, petrochemical and energy sector experience

    Ms. Frost has been involved in oil and gas. petrochemical and energy industry litigation throughout her career, including while she was a trial partner, assistant head of the trial department, founder and head of the appellate practice group at Baker Botts in Houston for almost 20 years. She has represented clients in a wide variety of oil and gas, petrochemical and energy litigation, including:

    • breach of pooling clause provisions in lease,

    • breach of implied covenants to develop, protect from drainage, market gas or oil in lease

    • disputes over ownership of and title to minerals

    • disputes over continued viability of leases and trespass claims

    • antitrust investigations and class actions in energy sector, including over pricing of crude oil royalties

    • disputes involving AMI’s and pref rights

    • disputes involving refinery accidents, oil field accidents and plant equipment failures

    • trade secrets litigation in energy industry

    • mass tort litigation in energy and petrochemical sector

    • disputes involving alleged groundwater pollution from underground storage and disposal as well as from pipelines

    • patent litigation regarding frac fluids and upstream equipment including Coriolis flowmeter technology

    • patent litigation involving catalysts for making polyethylene and ethylene based products

    In these matters, her clients have included ExxonMobil, Gulf, Chevron, Marathon, Shell, BP Energy, Devon Energy, Occidental, Pennzoil, The Dow Chemical Company, Equistar, Schlumberger, SG Methane, Eagle Hydrocarbons, Trail Ridge Energy and landowners including Cannon and FPL Farming.

    She worked on a number of landmark oil and gas and energy cases in her career, has handled in a lead role over 50 oil and gas and energy cases, has tried dozens of cases to verdict, including oil and gas, petrochemical and energy industry cases, and has handled the appeals from numerous state and federal court judgments, including in the energy are

    Representative oil and gas, petrochemical and energy industry cases handled

    • Willis Conner, et ux v. Gulf Oil Corp., C.A. No. 4:85-cv-601, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (represented Gulf in oil and gas lease dispute over whether lease was breached because acreage was not included in fieldwide unit)

    • Alexander Family Mineral Trust v. Chevron U.S.A. Inc., C.A. No. 5:89-cv-50, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Laredo Division (represented Chevron in oil and gas dispute over whether lease was breached based on Chevron’s alleged failure to develop the deep rights in a large lease held by shallow production from a few wells/plaintiff sought lease cancellation; case also included alleged failure to market and self-dealing based on affiliated sales transactions from wellhead to hub)

    • Cannon v. Sun-Key Oil Co., Inc., No. CV 27585l, in the 266th Judicial District Court of Erath County, Texas (represented Cannon in dispute with stripper well operator/lessee over whether lease had expired due to failure to maintain production)

    • Southern Ute Indian Tribe v. Amoco Production Co., et al., No. 91-B-2273, in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado (represented SG Methane in defendants class action/dispute about ownership of coal bed methane gas) (agreement to allow continued operations until ownership issue resolved and agreement to lease if ownership in Tribe determined/approved by Court and Tribe)

    • Marathon Oil Co., et al. v. Jimmie M. Luecke, et ux, No. 03-98-638-CV, in the Texas Court of Appeals, Austin Division, affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded (represented Marathon in dispute over whether pooling clause in lease had been breached and if so, what remedies were available to landowner, on whose tract the vertical portion of a dual borehole horizontal well had been drilled) (case of first impression in Texas, new trial on damages ordered in favor of Marathon)

    • In re Lease Oil Antitrust Litigation No. II, MDL Docket No. 1206, The McMahon Foundation, et al. v. Occidental Petroleum Corp. and OXY USA, Inc., C.A. No. 2:98-cv-130, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Corpus Christi Division (represented Oxy in suit brought for alleged antitrust violations for underpayments of crude oil royalty based on posted price/antitrust class action)

    • United States of America, ex rel, J. Benjamin Johnson, Jr., et al. v. Shell Oil Co., et al., C.A. No. 9:96-cv-66, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division (represented Oxy in qui tam/False Claims Act by US government alleging underpayment of crude oil royalties on federal lands)

    • Mary Alma Powell, et al. v. Oxy USA, Inc., No. 1977-015, in the County Court at Law, Panola County, Texas (represented Oxy in state law antitrust class action for alleged underpayment of crude oil royalty)

    • The State of Texas, et al. v. Amerada Hess Corp., No. 97-12,040, in the 53rd Judicial District Court of Travis County, Texas (represented Oxy in suit brought by State of Texas for alleged antitrust violations for underpayment of crude oil royalty under state leased land)

    • John R. Russell, et ux v. Chevron, No. 85-27,692, in the 234th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas (premises liability/personal injury)

    • Kelly-Moore Paint Co., Inc. v. Dow Chemical Co., et al., No. 19785-BH02, in the 23rd Judicial District Court of Brazoria County (asbestos liability)

    • Kaiser and Sons, Inc., et al. v. Union Carbide, et al., No. CV 1996-856, in the Circuit Court of Baldwin County, Alabama (environmental groundwater contamination claim)

    • Monsanto Co. v. The Honorable Robert May, No. 01-93-943-CV, mandamus action to the Texas Court of Appeals, Houston [1st] District, and No. D-4382, in the Texas Supreme Court (action preventing CEO’s deposition, challenging propriety of and suggesting guidelines for apex depositions in Texas)

    • Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. v. Trail Ridge Energy Partners II LLC, et al., No. CV-51,110, in the 441st Judicial District Court of Midland County, Texas

    • Complaint of Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. Regarding the Trail Ridge Energy Partners II LLC, Cattail Pond Lease, Well No. 261H, Drilling Permit No. 799773, Shackelford Spraberry Unit, Spraberry (Trend Area) Field in Midland County, Texas, Oil and Gas Docket No. 7C-0297616, Texas Railroad Commission

    • FPL Farming Ltd. v. Environmental Processing Systems, L.C., No. 09-08-00083-CV, in the Texas Court of Appeals, Beaumont District and Texas Supreme Court (subsurface trespass)

    • Pyro Technologies, Inc. v. Schlumberger Technology Corp., No. 363-90, in the 249th Judicial District Court of Johnson County, Texas, and appeal No. 10-96-186-CV, in the Texas Court of Appeals, Waco District (breach of contract, duty and alleged fraud) (lead counsel on appeal)

    • Baker Hughes, Inc. and Envirotech Controls, Inc. v. Keco R & D, Inc., No. 01-96-944-CV, appeal to the Texas Court of Appeals, Houston [1st] District, and No. 98-0520, in the Texas Supreme Court, petition for review granted, affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded (trade secrets/breach of contract summary judgment)

    • Dyna-Drill Technologies, Inc., et al. v. Conforma Clad, Inc., C.A. No. 4:03-cv-5599, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (trade secrets) (post trial/appellate counsel)

    • Equistar Chemicals, L.P. v. Dresser Rand Co., No. 14-02-874-CV, in the Texas Court of Appeals, Houston [14th] District, and appeal No. 04-0121, in the Texas Supreme Court (reversed and remanded) (products liability and professional negligence)

    • McFee, et al. v. Chevron International Oil Co., Inc., et al., No. 01-87-34-CV, in the Texas Court of Appeals, Houston [1st] District (appeal from grant of special appearance)

    • Mississippi River Transportation Corp., et al. v. Secretary, Louisiana Department of Revenue and Taxation, No. 95-286, in the Supreme Court of the United States (state tax dispute) (counsel for Pennzoil)

    • TXO Production Corp., et al. v. M.D. Mark Inc., appeal No. 14-97-105-CV, in the Texas Court of Appeals, Houston [14th] District, petition for review to Texas Supreme Court denied (breach of contract)

    • Kona Technology Corp. v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., et al., No. 99-20128, appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded (breach of contract/freight rates for polyethylene)

    • Marathon Oil Co., et al. v. Jimmie M. Luecke, et ux, No. 03-98-638-CV, in the Texas Court of Appeals, Austin District, affirmed in part, reversed in part and remanded (oil and gas alleged breach of lease)

    • Cannon v. Sun–Key Oil Co., No. 03-1143, in the Texas Supreme Court (lease termination for failure of production)

    • Gilbert Kerlin, Individually, et al. v. Concepcion Sauceda, et al., No. 05-653, in the Texas Supreme Court (land title dispute)

    • Gilbert Kerlin, Individually, et al. v. Gloria Soto Arias, et al., No. 06-97, in the Texas Supreme Court (land title dispute)

    • Texas Oil & Gas Association, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 10-60459, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (qualified facilities)

    • State of Texas, et al. v. EPA, et al., No. 10-60614, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (flexible permits)

    • Currently representing limited partner in dissolution of multi-decade limited partnership in the petrochemical industry.

    • Currently representing operator in dispute concerning ownership of deep rights in the Permian Basin.

    • Ms. Frost has represented oil companies, owners and operators in connection with oil field and platform accidents, as well as major chemical companies as national coordinating counsel and counsel on other national scope issues.

    Representative patent litigation in oil and gas, petrochemical and energy sector

         Upstream

    • Invensys Systems, Inc. v. Emerson Electric Co., et al., C.A. No. 6:12-cv-799, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division (represent inventor and manufacturer of digital drive Coriolis flowmeters, used extensively in the upstream oil and gas industry, in patent litigation in Eastern District of Texas and related litigation in Western District of Texas) (patent infringement)

    • BJ Services Co. v. Halliburton Energy Services, et al., C.A. No. 4:00-cv-948, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (represented BJ Services in patent dispute over frac fluid patent) (judgment for BJ Services)

    • Effective Exploration LLC v. Devon Energy Production Company LP, C.A. No. 2:15-cv-450, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (represent Devon in patent dispute over drilling method patent

         Downstream/petrochemical

    • Exxon Oil Corp., et al. v. Mobil Oil Corp., et al., C.A. No. 4:96-cv-3795, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (represented Exxon in patent dispute over metallocene catalysts for making polyethylene) (judgment for Exxon)

    • Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Exxon Oil Corp., C.A. No. 1:98-cv-638, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (defended Exxon in suit by Phillips for patent infringement regarding catalysts for making polyethylene) (judgment for Exxon)

    • Union Carbide Corp., et al. v. Shell Oil Co., C.A. No. 1:99-cv-274, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (represented Shell in suit by Union Carbide for patent infringement regarding catalysts used for making ethylene) (judgment for Shell) (reversed in part and remanded

    Representative patent litigation against energy companies/website technology

    • Data Carriers, LLC v. Western Refining Inc., C.A. No. 2:15-cv-119, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement)

    • Data Carriers, LLC v. BP Energy Co., C.A. No. 2:15-cv-1013, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement)

    Representative engagements in the tech and innovation sector

    COMMERCIAL LITIGATION

         Intellectual Property and Trade Secrets

    • Fisher-Rosemount Systems, Inc. v. Invensys Systems, Inc., C.A. No. 1:13-cv-587, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division (patent infringement)

    • Digital Technology Licensing LLC v. Cingular Wireless LLC, C.A. No. 2:06-cv-156, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement)

    • Droplets, Inc. v. Adobe Systems Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:06-cv-307, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement)

    • AT&T Corp. v. Vonage Holdings Corp., et al., C.A. No. 3:07-cv-858, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (patent infringement)

    • In the Matter of Certain Baseband Processor Chips and Chipsets, Transmitter and Receiver (Radio) Chips, Power Control Chips, and Products Containing Same, Including Cellular Telephone Handsets, Inv. No. 337-TA-543, in the United States Trade Commission (patent infringement)

    • Summit 6 LLC v. Research in Motion Corp., Samsung, Multiply, Facebook and Photobucket, C.A. No. 3:11-cv-367, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (patent infringement)

    • Kermit Aguayo and Khanh N. Tran v. Universal Instruments Corp., C.A. No. 4:02-cv-1747, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division (patent infringement)

    • Data Carriers, LLC v. Amgen Inc., C.A. No. 2:15-cv-122, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement)

    • Data Carriers, LLC v. Biogen Idec Inc., C.A. No. 2:15-cv-125, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement)

    • Tune Hunter Inc. v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, et al., C.A. No. 2:09-cv-148, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement)

    • Joao Bock Transaction Systems of Texas, LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC, et al., C.A. No. 6:09-cv-208, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division (patent infringement)

    • Saxon Innovations, LLC v. Nokia Corp., et al., C.A. No. 6:07-cv-490, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division (patent infringement)  

    • Intellect Wireless v. HTC Corp., et al., C.A. No. 09 C 2945, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (patent infringement)

    • ITT Manufacturing Enterprises, Inc. v. Cellco Partnership (d/b/a Verizon Wireless), et al., C.A. No. 09-190, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware (patent infringement)

    • Personal Audio, LLC v. Apple, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 9:09-cv-111, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division (patent infringement)

    • Soverain Software LLC v. Newegg Inc., No. 2011-1009, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (appeal from C.A. No. 6:07-cv-511 in the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division) (patent infringement)

    • Bandspeed, Inc. v. Sony Electronics Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:11-cy-771, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division (patent infringement)

    • Playfish, Ltd. v. Rackspace Hosting, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 5:09-cv-749, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, San Antonio Division (trademark infringement) (dismissed)

    • YMax Corp., et al. v. AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P., C.A. No. 4:10-cv-932, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, Oakland Division (patent infringement)  

    • IpLearn, LLC v. Learn.com, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6:10-cv-104, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division (patent infringement)  

    • Wi-LAN, Inc. v. Acer, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:10-cv-124, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement)

    • YMax Corp., et al. v. VXi Corp., C.A. No. 9:10-cv-80410, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach Division (patent infringement)

    • YMax Corp., et al. v. AT&T Intellectual Property II, L.P., C.A. No. 3:10-cv-2515, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, San Francisco Division (patent infringement)

    • The PACid Group, LLC v. Best Buy Co., Inc., et al., C.A. No. 6:10-cv-370, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Tyler Division (patent infringement)

    • Aliphcom v. Wi-LAN, Inc., C.A. No. 2:10-cv-498, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement)

    • Sky Technologies LLC v. Microsoft Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:11-cv-10833, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (patent infringement)

    • Inductive Design, Inc. v. Broadcom Corporation, et al., C.A. No. 1:11-cv-421, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division (patent infringement)

    • Personal Audio, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd., et al., C.A. No. 1:11-cv-432, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division (patent infringement)

    • RPost Holdings, Inc., et al. v. Adobe Systems Incorporated, et al., C.A. No. 2:11-cv-325, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement)

    • 3D Design Solutions LLC v. Cadence Design Systems, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 3:12-cv-625, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (patent infringement)

    • Cambridge Silicon Radio Limited v. JatoTech Ventures, L.P., et al., C.A. No. 1:12-cv-359, in the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division (patent infringement)

    • Placemark Investments, Inc. v. Prudential Investments, Inc., C.A. No. 3:13-cv-1719, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas, Dallas Division (patent infringement)

    • Data Carriers, LLC v. Amgen Inc., C.A. No. 2:15-cv-122, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement)

    • Data Carriers, LLC v. Biogen Idec Inc., C.A. No. 2:15-cv-125, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement)

    • Nonend Inventions, N.V. v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 2:15-cv-466, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement)

    • 511 Innovations, Inc. v. Apple Inc., C.A. 2:16-cv-868, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement)

    • Soverain IP, LLC v. Apple Inc., C.A. No. 2:17-cv-207, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas, Marshall Division (patent infringement)

    REPRESENTATIVE APPEALS

         Intellectual Property and Trade Secrets

    • Baker Hughes, Inc. and Envirotech Controls, Inc. v. Keco R & D, Inc., No. 01-96-944-CV, appeal to the Texas Court of Appeals, Houston [1st.] District, and No. 98-0520, petition for review to the Texas Supreme Court granted, affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded (trade secrets/breach of contract summary judgment)

    • General Universal Systems, Inc., et al. v. HAL, Inc., et al., No. 01-21114, appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit (copyright infringement)

    • Freedom Wireless, Inc. v. Boston Communications Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:00-cv-12234, in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts (patent infringement) (counsel post-trial and on appeal for Cingular Wireless)

    • Broadcom Corp. v. International Trade Commission, No. 2007-1164, in the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (patent infringement)

    • In re Kyocera Wireless Corp., et al., Appeal No. 2007-1493 (consolidated), appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (appeal from ITC section 337 exclusion order, represented AT&T Mobility LLC) (argued for AT&T Mobility LLC, T-Mobile and RIM) (exclusion order vacated) (Opinion dated Oct. 14, 2008)

    TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION SECTOR PUBLICATIONS

    • Frost, Claudia Wilson; Markus Gampp; “Will Trolls Make Their Way Across the Pond?”; The National Law Journal (September 7, 2015)

    • Frost, Claudia Wilson; Penny L. Prater; “Falling prices at the pump put a premium on energy IP”; DLA Piper Firm Publication (March 24, 2015)

    • Frost, Claudia Wilson; “The view from the US of the fundamental reform in European patent law”; DLA Piper Firm Publication (December 18, 2014)

    • Frost, Claudia Wilson; Jeffrey Johnson; Penny L. Prater; “Patent wars: can the energy industry avoid them?”; DLA Piper Firm Publication (September 10, 2014)

    • Frost, Claudia Wilson; “Trade Secrets: Current Approaches to Avoiding Litigation or Winning It”; State Bar of Texas Advanced Civil Trial Course, San Antonio/Dallas/Houston, Texas (July, August and October 2012)

    • Frost, Claudia Wilson; Kovarsky, Lee B.; “Litigating Patent Cases in the International Trade Commission” (May 2009)

    • Frost, Claudia Wilson; Hess, Adam; Jakopin, David; “From Dragon to Ox: China in 2009 – Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement” (April 2009)

    • Frost, Claudia Wilson; Finkel, Evan; Johnson, Jeffrey; Gaston, Jeremy; “Federal Circuit Clarifies Subject Matter Patentability Test”; Pillsbury Firm Publication (November 11, 2008)

    • Frost, Claudia Wilson; Gaston, Jeremy J.; “Recent Developments: Supreme Court Restrictions on Patent Rights and Remedies”; The Advocate, Winter 2008

    • Frost, Claudia Wilson; “Intellectual Property Appeals”; State Bar of Texas Advanced Appellate Practice Course, Austin, Texas (September 7, 2007)

    • Frost, Claudia Wilson; Israel, Sharon A.; Gaston, Jeremy; Kovarsky, Lee B.; “Patent Opinions in a Post-Knorr World”; IP Litigator (March 1, 2006)

    • Frost, Claudia Wilson; “Patent Claims and Antitrust Cases”; ABA Antitrust Section Meeting, Washington, D.C. (2002)

    • Frost, Claudia Wilson; “Patent Litigation: A General Overview”; State Bar of Texas Advanced Civil Trial Course, San Antonio, Texas (November 1, 2002)

    TECHNOLOGY & INNOVATION SECTOR PRESENTATIONS AND SEMINARS

    • “IPR Practice: Recent Developments, Featuring Oil States v. Greene’s Energy,” Claudia Wilson Frost and Jeffrey Johnson, IP Summit 2017 (Oct. 23, 2017)

    • “Global Patent Enforcement Strategies,” Federal Circuit Bar Association Global Series, London, UK (Sept. 2017)   

    • “Patent Litigation in the US,” 2016 Federal Circuit Bar Association Global Series, Paris, France (Oct. 13, 2016)

    • Copyright Infringement in The Cloud: Examining the Challenges of the “Digital Storage Locker,” ABA Section of Litigation IP Roundtable, Houston Club, Houston, Texas (Mar. 29, 2016)

    • Hot Topics in IP, Duff & Phelps IP Value Summit, Half Moon Bay, California (Dec. 3, 2015)

    • Intellectual Property & Trade 2015: Adjudication, Administration, and Innovation, Federal Circuit Bar Association Global Series, Shanghai, China (Oct. 19, 2015)

    • Keeping Ahead of Privacy Issues and Navigating the Changing World of Patent Litigation, DLA Piper’s 9th Annual Women in IP Law CLE Luncheon, East Palo Alto, California (Sept. 22, 2015)

    • Patent Trolls: What to Do When One Is Under Your Bridge, IATA Legal Forum, Marina del Rey, California (Sept. 16, 2015)

    • Patent Values and Litigation: The New Normal?, Duff & Phelps, LES Silicon Valley Chapter Meeting, Santa Clara, California (Feb. 18, 2015)

    • Systems, Challenges, Solutions: Trade, Intellectual Property, Courts, and Governance, Federal Circuit Bar Association Global Series, Geneva, Switzerland (Oct. 21, 2014)

    • Patent Reform: Is It Working?, DLA Piper’s 8th Annual Women in IP Law CLE Luncheon, East Palo Alto, California (Sept. 17, 2014)

    • Reasonable Royalty Damages: How to Satisfy the Judge and Persuade the Jury, American Bar Association Webinar (Aug. 19, 2014)

    • Best Practices – Innovation and the Adjudicatory Process (Fact Development, Discovery, and Fact-Finding), Federal Circuit Bar Association, Global Series 2014, Best Practices: The Global Dialogue, 2014 Update, Washington, D.C. (May 23, 2014)

    • 2013 Korea-US IP Judicial Conference, “The US Patent Enforcement System, By Comparison,” Federal Circuit Bar Association Global Series, Seoul, Korea (Oct. 21, 2013)

    • Managing Your IP Across Borders, DLA Piper’s 7th Annual Women in IP Law CLE Luncheon, East Palo Alto, California (Sept. 25, 2013)

    • Trade Secrets in a Mobile World, State Bar of Texas 35th Annual Advanced Civil Trial Course 2012, Houston, Texas (Oct. 19, 2012)

    • Trade Secrets in a Mobile Workforce World, State Bar of Texas 35th Annual Page Keeton Civil Litigation, Austin, Texas (Oct. 28, 2011)

    • Preserving Issues for Appeal, Houston Intellectual Property Law Association and University of Houston Law Center Institute for Intellectual Property & Information Law, 26th Annual Institute on Intellectual Property Law, Galveston, Texas

Insights

News