Dale Chang

In addition to his recent jury wins, Mr. Chang first-chaired a PTAB trial in a pivotal and hotly contested IPR of a patent on which the patentee had prevailed at the ITC. The PTAB found all claims invalid in January 2022. Earlier that month, Mr. Chang obtained another complete victory from the PTAB, in a post grant review of a patent asserted in district court. He has since first-chaired several other PTAB trials as petitioner, all of which resulted in the PTAB finding the challenged claims invalid. 

Mr. Chang has also successfully litigated trade secrets cases—most recently, Mr. Chang was instrumental in achieving LG Chem’s landmark 2020 win at the ITC in its high profile trade secrets case against SK Innovation on electric car batteries.

Other notable achievements include major victories at the ITC in 2020, 2017, and 2015, and 2018, 2016, and 2014 jury wins in district court.

Mr. Chang’s representative matters also include:

District Court

• Samsung v. NVIDIA (E.D. Va.), as counsel for NVIDIA in defending against eight patents relating to semiconductor and other technologies, in which Samsung dropped all but three patents prior to trial and the Latham team moved for Rule 37 sanctions as to two of the three remaining patents, resulting in a mistrial on those two patents and a jury win on the sole remaining patent (all asserted claims not infringed, one asserted claim invalid, and damages of “US$0”)
• Tessera/Xperi entities v. Samsung. Represented Tessera in the ITC and district courts in a global patent dispute involving semiconductor packaging and wafer bonding technologies.
• First Quality Tissue v. Irving Consumer Products, as counsel to Irving Consumer Products defending against alleged patent infringement relating to dried tissue
• WiTricity v. Momentum Dynamics, as counsel to Momentum Dynamics in defending a seven-patent case on wireless charging technology for electronic vehicles
• Counsel for AMD in its patent cross-license dispute with Intel, in which Intel agreed to pay US$1.25 billion to AMD to settle all disputes between the parties
• EON Corp. IP Holdings v. Skytel, as counsel for defendant USA Mobility in a patent infringement case involving two-way paging technology
• InterDigital v. ZTE (D. Del.), as counsel for InterDigital in asserting three patents relating to 3G and Wi Fi technologies, in which the jury found all asserted claims infringed and valid (damages bifurcated)
• Kruse Technology Partnership v. Isuzu Motors and Kruse Technology Partnership v. Ford Motor Company, as counsel for various Isuzu entities and Ford in defending against alleged patent infringement relating to internal combustion engines
• Positive Technologies v. BenQ America, as counsel for defendant Mitsubishi Digital Electronics America in a patent infringement case involving LCD display technology
• Prism Technologies v. Adobe Systems, as counsel for Symantec in defending against alleged patent infringement relating to two-factor authentication, obtaining summary judgment for non-infringement after most defendants settled
• Symantec v. Computer Associates Int'l, as counsel for plaintiff Symantec in a patent infringement case involving anti-virus technology
• Technology Patents v. Deutsche Telekom, as counsel for defendants Telecom Italia and Telecom Personal in a patent infringement case involving SMS technology
• Uniloc v. Symantec, as counsel for defendant Symantec in a patent infringement case involving software registration technology

International Trade Commission

• InterDigital v. Microsoft & Nokia, as counsel for InterDigital in asserting two patents relating to 3G cellphone technology, in which an initial determination finding violation was issued in April 2015
• Monolithic Power Systems v. O2 Micro International and In the Matter of Certain Cold Cathode Flourescent Lamp (CCFL) Inverter Circuits and Products Containing Same, as counsel for Monolithic Power Systems in a declaratory judgment action and a related ITC investigation involving patents involving LCD backlighting control circuits, in which the team obtained dismissal with prejudice on the eve of trial in the declaratory judgment action following a report of the court-appointed independent expert’s finding the asserted claims invalid and not infringed, resulting in a final determination of non-infringement in the ITC investigation