“Understands what clients need”
“A great strategist”
“Knowledge of litigation and patent law is strong”Chambers USA 2020

Charles H. Sanders

Boston
  • 200 Clarendon Street
  • Boston, MA 02116
  • USA
 
 

Charles Sanders, a first chair trial lawyer, represents high technology companies across venues, including federal district court, the International Trade Commission (ITC), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and the Federal Circuit. He obtains multi-million dollar settlements, ITC exclusion orders, summary judgments, and trial victories in high-stakes intellectual property disputes.

Mr. Sanders draws on deep technical knowledge and broad litigation and trial experience to represent clients in IP matters across a diverse range of technologies, such as semiconductors, electromechanical devices, medical technologies, and software.

In addition to litigating disputes, Mr. Sanders leverages his experience with patent filings and developing patent portfolio strategy to help clients achieve broader IP objectives.

Outside of his IP practice, Mr. Sanders provides pro bono legal services to Project Citizenship, an organization that helps eligible immigrants become US citizens, and served as the founding Chair of its Board of Directors.

Mr. Sanders’ experience includes representing:

Signature Matters
  • Seoul Semiconductor as trial counsel in a two-patent case brought by Enplas Display Device in the US District Court for the Northern District of California relating to optical lenses and a related appeal. After a six-day trial, the jury found both patents valid, that Enplas had induced infringement, and that such infringement was willful. The Federal Circuit affirmed liability on appeal. (Enplas Display Device Corp v. Seoul Semiconductor Company Ltd.)
  • InfoBionic in a suit involving six patents and alleged trade secret misappropriation brought by CardioNet in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts relating to remote cardiac monitoring technology and in related appeals. The court granted judgment in InfoBionic’s favor following invalidation of five patents, dismissal of the trade secret claims, and summary judgment of non-infringement of the remaining patent. Mr. Sanders also represented InfoBionic at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) in related inter partes review (IPR) petitions and at the Federal Circuit, which affirmed PTAB and court decisions in InfoBionic’s favor. (CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc.)
  • Webasto Roof Systems, a leading automotive supplier, as lead counsel in a patent infringement suit brought by UUSI in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan relating to anti-pinch technology for sunroofs. Mr. Sanders also represented Webasto as the petitioner in three related IPRs and successfully obtained final written decisions finding all three patents unpatentable and obtained affirmance on appeal to the Federal Circuit. (UUSI v. Webasto Roof Systems)
  • OSRAM, one of the world’s oldest and largest lighting companies, as:
    • Complainant lead counsel at trial before the ITC in a case relating to LED technologies. The court granted an initial determination of violation against LG and the case settled successfully prior to the final determination. (In re Certain Light-Emitting Diodes and Products Containing the Same.)*
    • Respondent lead counsel at trial before the ITC in a countersuit involving eight LG patents. Disposed of six patents before the pre-trial conference, and excluded evidence of domestic industry for a seventh patent at the pre-trial conference. On cross examination of LG’s expert, successfully obtained admissions that relevant claims of the remaining patent were invalid. The case settled prior to the initial determination. (In re Certain Light Emitting Diodes and Products Containing Same)*
  • ZTE, a leading Chinese telecommunications company, as lead trial counsel at the ITC, in a case relating to photographic imaging functionality in mobile phones. The Commission awarded respondent ZTE a complete victory, holding that ZTE did not infringe either patent, and held that the complainant did not meet the technical prong of the domestic industry requirement for either patent. (In re Certain Electronic Imaging Devices.)*
Semiconductor Matters
  • Nitride Semiconductors as lead counsel against RayVio in a case in the US District Court for the Northern District of California and in related IPR proceedings involving technology for making ultraviolet LEDs. The PTAB upheld the validity of asserted claims, leading to a final judgment of infringement and no invalidity in district court. (Nitride Semiconductors Co. v. RayVio Corp.)
  • Seoul Semiconductor as lead counsel in a case brought by Bluestone Innovations in the US District Court for the Northern District of California relating to growth of LEDs on mesas. The case settled. (Bluestone Innovations LLC v. Ikea North America Services LLC.)
  • OSRAM GmbH in a:
    • Patent infringement suit brought by Citizen in the US District Court for the District of Columbia and obtained an affirmance of the district court’s decision in OSRAM’s favor. (Citizen Electronic v. OSRAM GmbH.)*
    • Patent infringement suit against Dominant Semiconductors in the ITC. The ITC granted OSRAM an exclusion order, which the Federal Circuit expanded to include additional patents on appeal. (OSRAM GmbH v. International Trade Commission)*
Electromechanical Device Matters
  • Complainant Pass & Seymour, a manufacturer of electrical wiring devices, as trial counsel in an investigation before the ITC involving six patents asserted against multiple products of four separately represented respondents. The ITC granted Pass & Seymour an exclusion order. (In re Certain Ground Fault Circuit Interrupters and Products Containing the Same)*
  • Esselte AB in patent litigation brought by Sandford L.P. in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York relating to printer technology. The case settled following defeat of Sanford’s preliminary injunction motion and institution of IPRs against all Sanford’s asserted patents. (Sanford L.P. v. Esselte AB)
Medical Technology Matters
  • Anika Therapeutics, a leading manufacturer of products designed to help protect, heal and regenerate tissue, in a patent infringement suit brought by Genzyme in the US District Court for the District of Massachusetts relating to a viscosupplement for treating osteoarthritis. The case was dismissed following a jury verdict against Genzyme in related proceedings. (Genzyme Corporation v. Anika Therapeutics, Inc.)*
  • NMT Medical Inc., a manufacturer of a proprietary cardiac implant, in patent litigation against W.L. Gore & Associates in the US District Court for the District of Delaware relating to a patent on such implants. The case settled. (NMT Medical Inc. v. W.L Gore & Assoc. Inc.)*
  • A leading pharmaceutical company in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving an antibiotic.*
  • A leading pharmaceutical company in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving a MAO inhibitor.*
Software Matters
  • LogMeIn, a provider of cloud-based remote work tolls, in a patent infringement suit brought by Meetrix IP in the US District Court for the Western District of Texas relating to remote conferencing. The case settled following a favorable claim construction order. (Meetrix IP, LLC v. LogMeIn, Inc.)
  • Citrix Systems, a software provider, in a patent infringement suit brought by Accolade Systems LLC in the Eastern District of Texas relating to remote access technology. The court granted summary judgment in Citrix’s favor. (Accolade Systems LLC v. Citrix Systems, Inc.)*

*Matter handled prior to joining Latham

Thought Leadership
  • “Strategic Implications of Recent Changes in PTAB Proceedings” Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal (2019)
  • “Preemptive Use of Post-Grant Review vs. Inter Partes Review,” Law360 (2017)
  • “How Teva Will Affect Section 337 Investigations,” Law360 (August 2015)
 
 
 
Notice: We appreciate your interest in Latham & Watkins. If your inquiry relates to a legal matter and you are not already a current client of the firm, please do not transmit any confidential information to us. Before taking on a representation, we must determine whether we are in a position to assist you and agree on the terms and conditions of engagement with you. Until we have completed such steps, we will not be deemed to have a lawyer-client relationship with you, and will have no duty to keep confidential the information we receive from you. Thank you for your understanding.