Ching-Lee Fukuda

• Nevro Corp. v. Mayo Clinic Ventures et al. — Lead counsel for Nevro in securing wins on all counts brought by Nevro and by Mayo in arbitration, relating to patent and licensing issues in the neuromodulation field. Successfully obtained an injunction in the Northern District of California against Mayo’s continued breach of contract. A two-day arbitration hearing was held in Minneapolis, during which 19 fact and expert witnesses were examined by both sides. The arbitrator found in favor of Nevro on all counts, denied all of Mayo’s counts in their entirety (including Mayo’s royalty demand for many millions of dollars), and ordered Mayo to return control of patent prosecution to Nevro, pay Nevro’s past prosecution costs, and pay Nevro’s fees for the California action.
• Bayer Healthcare, LLC v. Baxalta Inc. et al. — Led a damages trial team that successfully obtained a jury award of US$155 million for Bayer that ranks among the 10 largest patent verdicts in the District of Delaware for the past decade, which was recently affirmed by the Federal Circuit. After a six-day jury trial involving 18 witnesses, the jury found in favor of Bayer across the board. Also obtained supplemental damages and interest, bringing the total past damages award to US$182 million. Technology involves recombinant factor VIII for treating hemophilia.
• CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc. — Led an appellate team that successfully obtained a significant § 101 patent eligibility win for CardioNet at the Federal Circuit. In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed the District of Massachusetts and upheld the eligibility of CardioNet’s remote cardiac monitoring software patent.
• Certain Audio Processing Hardware, Software and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-1026 — Co-led an ITC team that successfully defended Apple at the ITC against three patents involving audio processing and noise suppression technology. After a one-week bench trial, obtained initial determination finding of no infringement, no technical domestic industry, and no standing. Commission affirmed finding of no violation based on no technical domestic industry.
• Zirvi v. Illumina, Inc. et al. – Successfully defended Illumina in a District of New Jersey case involving correction of inventorship and conspiracy claims relating to DNA sequencing technology. After considering Illumina’s motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions, Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in their entirety, putting to an end over a decade of serial litigation by the plaintiff.
• Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation v. Nevro Corp. — Successfully defended Nevro in three cases in the District of Delaware relating to spinal cord stimulation and implantable medical device technology. After Boston Scientific asserted 20 patents and over 60 trade secrets, turned the tables when the six-year litigation resolved with plaintiff Boston Scientific paying Nevro US$85 million. Defeated Boston Scientific’s § 101 challenge to Nevro’s core paresthesia-free patents. Lead counsel for Nevro in a series of IPR proceedings and appeals that successfully invalidated claims of 11 Boston Scientific patents.
• Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Auris Health, Inc. — Lead counsel for Auris Health, a subsidiary of J&J, in a series of IPR proceedings challenging the validity of multiple Intuitive Surgical patents asserted in the District of Delaware. The PTAB invalidated all claims of a key asserted Intuitive Surgical patent relating to surgical robotics technology but upheld the claims of two other patents. Then led an appellate team that argued all three appeals on the same day, and successfully obtained an affirmance of Auris’ PTAB win below, at the same time successfully vacated and remanded most claims of the other two patents upheld by the PTAB.
• Microsoft Corp. v. SynKloud Tech., LLC / SynKloud Tech., LLC v. HP, Inc. — Successfully invalidated on behalf of Microsoft and HP, three of four remote storage patents asserted by SynKloud in the District of Delaware, under § 101 on motions to dismiss. The case settled shortly thereafter.
• Cranial Technologies, Inc. v. OttoBock SE & Co. KGAA and Active Life, LLC – Lead counsel for Cranial Technologies in a five-patent case in the Central District of California relating to technology for manufacturing cranial orthotics to correct infant head deformities. Defeated OttoBock’s § 101 challenge on its motion to dismiss.
• I-Mab Biopharma v. Inhibrx, Inc. and Brendan Eckelman – Lead counsel for I-Mab in asserting trade secret claims under DTSA in the District of Delaware relating to discovery and development of bispecific antibodies for cancer treatment. Defeated Inhibrx’s motion to dismiss on all grounds raised after a full day evidentiary hearing in which both parties’ highest level of executives were examined on the stand. The court also denied the large majority of Inhibrx’s summary judgment and other pre-trial motions. A jury trial was held in late 2024 with the jury finding in favor of the defendants on a subset of the trade secrets, with a later bench trial to address I-Mab’s remaining trade secret claims. I-Mab sought compensatory and enhanced damages of over US$400 million in total. The parties reached a settlement in early 2025.
• PRCM Advisors, LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp. — Represented Pine River Capital Management in asserting trade secret claims under DTSA and other IP claims in SDNY for Two Harbors’ improper taking of all software and other IP owned by Pine River relating to the management of mortgage REITs. Defeated Two Harbors’ motion to dismiss on all trade secret and IP claims.
• Hanwha Solutions Corp. v. LONGi Green Energy Tech. Co. et al. — Lead counsel for LONGi in an IPR proceeding that successfully invalidated all patent claims asserted by Hanwha in an ITC action involving solar cell technology. Also led an appellate team that successfully affirmed the PTAB win at the Federal Circuit.
• SightSound Tech., LLC v. Apple, Inc. — Successfully invalidated all 94 asserted claims in a three-patent case in the Western District of Pennsylvania involving electronic sale and transmission of music and video. Invalidated 87 claims in district court. Invalidated remaining seven claims in covered business method (CBM) proceedings at the PTAB. Federal Circuit affirmed.
• Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma, Inc. et al. — Successfully defeated Antares’ motion for preliminary injunction in the District of Delaware in a “bet-the-company” patent infringement action involving concentrated methotrexate injection to treat rheumatoid arthritis. Federal Circuit affirmed and, in a precedential decision, found all claims on appeal invalid for failing the “original patent” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 251 for reissue claims.
• CardioNet, LLC et al. v. MedTel24, Inc. et al. — Obtained a bench trial win for plaintiff BioTelemetry (formerly CardioNet) in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania finding MedTel24 in contempt of a consent judgment, and finding all five CardioNet patents infringed, valid, and enforceable. MedTel24 was ordered to deliver to BioTelemetry all its hardware, software, and documentation related to the infringing technology at the penalty of US$20,000 for each day that the materials were not delivered. CardioNet was awarded its lost profits and lawyers’ fees.
• Smartflash, LLC et al. v. Apple, Inc. — Defended Apple in a six-patent case in the Eastern District of Texas, including a jury trial, relating to purchase and digital rights management of content. Federal Circuit found all asserted claims ineligible under § 101. Also represented Apple in more than 30 CBM petitions on more than 150 claims resulting in five rounds of instituted proceedings at the PTAB; successfully invalidated all challenged claims in final decisions. Federal Circuit affirmed.

Some of the above matters were handled prior to joining Sidley.