Theodore W. Chandler

Chandler, Theodore W.

Partner


Contact
Los Angeles +1 213 896 5830

555 West Fifth Street
Los Angeles, California 90013
+1 213 896 5830

tchandler@sidley.com tchandler@sidley.com

Admissions & Certifications
Education
Clerkships

Theodore W. Chandler

Partner


TED CHANDLER joined the firm in 2003 and became a partner in 2008. For over a decade, his practice has focused on patent litigation. Ted has experience in patent cases involving software, web browsers, websites, digital televisions, wireless devices, and medical devices. Ted has participated in numerous trials in federal court and the International Trade Commission, as well as appeals to the Federal Circuit. He is also registered to practice before the Patent Office where he has participated in numerous reexaminations and inter partes review proceedings in parallel to litigation.

Experience

Examples of cases in federal court:

  • ContentGuard Holdings, Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. et al., No. 2:13-cv-01112 (E.D. Tex. filed Dec. 18, 2013) (Gilstrap, J.): Represented Apple, one of the accused infringers. Patents-in-suit concerned digital rights management. Jury trial in 2015.
  • Mitsubishi Elec. Corp. et al. v. World Media Group, Inc. et al., No. 3:14-cv-01257 (N.D. Tex. filed Apr. 8, 2014) (Lynn, J.): Represented Mitsubishi, Panasonic, Sanyo, and Warner Brothers, the patent owners. Patents-in-suit concerned the DVD standard. Settled in 2014.
  • Universal Electronics, Inc. v. Universal Remote Control, Inc., No. 8:12-cv-00329 (C.D. Cal. filed Mar. 2, 2012) (Guilford, J.): Represented Universal Remote Control, the accused infringer. Patents-in-suit concerned remote controls for televisions. Jury trial in 2014.
  • Medtronic MiniMed Inc. et al. v. Animas Corp., No. 2:12-cv-04471 (C.D. Cal. filed May 22, 2012) (Lew, J.): Represented Animas, the accused infringer. Patents-in-suit concerned insulin pumps. Settled in 2014.
  • Motorola Mobility, Inc. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:11-cv-01408 (W.D. Wash. filed Aug. 25, 2011) (Robart, J.): Represented Microsoft, the accused infringer. Patents-in-suit concerned smartphones. Stayed in 2012.
  • California Institute of Technology v. STMicroelectronics N.V. et al., No. 2:10-cv-09099 (C.D. Cal. filed Nov. 24, 2010) (Pfaelzer, J.): Represented STMicroelectronics, the accused infringer. Patents-in-suit concerned CMOS image sensors. Settled in 2012.
  • eBay Inc. et al. v. Kelora Sys., LLC, No. 4:10 cv 04947 (N.D. Cal. filed Nov. 2, 2010) (Wilken, J.): Represented eBay and Microsoft, two of the accused infringers. Patent-in-suit concerned parametric searching. Summary judgment of invalidity granted in 2012.
  • Eolas Techs., Inc. v. Adobe Sys., Inc. et al., No. 6:09-cv-00446 (E.D. Tex. filed Oct. 6, 2009) (Davis, J.): Represented Apple, one of the accused infringers. Patents-in-suit concerned a web browser. Settled in 2011.
  • Boston Scientific Corp. v. Johnson & Johnson et al., No. 3:02-cv-00790 (N.D. Cal. filed Feb. 14, 2002) (Illston, J.): Represented Johnson & Johnson, an accused infringer, and Cordis, an accused infringer and counterclaim plaintiff. Patents-in-suit concerned balloon catheters. Jury trial in 2007.
  • Linear Tech. Corp. v. Micrel, Inc., No. 3:94-cv-01633 (N.D. Cal. filed May 9, 1994) (Patel, J.): Represented Micrel, the accused infringer. Patent-in-suit concerned an adaptive transistor drive circuit. Bench trial in 2005.

Examples of cases in the International Trade Commission:

  • In re Certain CMOS Image Sensors and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-846 (USITC filed May 1, 2012) (Essex, A.L.J.): Represented STMicroelectronics, one of the respondents. Patents-in-suit concerned CMOS image sensors. Settled in 2012.
  • In re Certain Wireless Communication System Server Software, Wireless Handheld Devices and Battery Packs, Inv. No. 337-TA-706 (USITC filed Jan. 22, 2010) (Gildea, A.L.J.): Represented the respondent, Research in Motion. Patents-in-suit concerned wireless devices. Settled in 2010.
  • In re Certain Encapsulated Integrated Circuit Devices and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-501 (USITC filed Nov. 17, 2003) (Bullock, A.L.J.): Represented the complainant, Amkor. Patents-in-suit concerned packaging for semiconductors. Bench trials in 2004 and 2009.
  • In re Certain Flash Memory Controllers, Drives, Memory Cards, and Media Players and Products Containing Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-619 (USITC filed Oct. 24, 2007) (Bullock, A.L.J.): Represented LG Electronics, one of the respondents. Patents-in-suit concerned flash memory. Bench trial in 2008.
  • In re Certain Digital Televisions and Certain Products Containing Same and Methods of Using Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-617 (USITC filed Oct. 15, 2007) (Charneski, A.L.J.): Represented AmTRAN, Proview, and VIZIO, three of the respondents. Patents-in-suit concerned digital televisions. Bench trial in 2008.
Memberships & Activities
News & Achievements