Mark Chapman is a partner in the New York office. Mr. Chapman has over twenty years of experience litigating patent cases, primarily for technology, automotive, aerospace and medical device clients. He has litigated patent cases in district courts around the country and the ITC, and has participated in several jury and bench trials. He has also represented clients in several contested inter partes reviews and inter partes reexaminations in the PTAB, as well as many patent appeals to the Federal Circuit from both courts and the PTAB.
Mr. Chapman has also coordinated and supported foreign patent litigation and related opposition and nullity proceedings, working closely with patent litigation counsel in Canada, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Germany, France and Italy. He has also litigated trade secret disputes, negotiated and drafted license, joint venture and other IP agreements, provided patent invalidity and non-infringement opinions, and provided general patent and litigation counseling.
Mr. Chapman has extensive experience litigating patent cases in the automotive industry, including cases that involved laser cruise control systems, GPS navigation systems, acceleration sensors, blind spot monitoring systems, collision warning systems, lane departure warning systems, window pinch systems, airbag systems, and media display systems. He also has substantial experience litigating patent cases in the technology industry, including cases related to smartphones, gaming consoles, TVs, cameras, DVRs, Blu-ray/DVD players, user interfaces and video surveillance systems. Mr. Chapman has also litigated patent cases in other fields, including aerospace technology and medical devices.
Before joining Haug Partners, Mr. Chapman was a partner at Kenyon & Kenyon, as well as Andrews Kurth Kenyon and Hunton Andrews Kurth. Before joining Kenyon as an associate, Mr. Chapman worked as a corporate associate at Sullivan & Cromwell. Before that, he clerked at the Supreme Court of Canada for Justice John C. Major.
- Represents Red Bull Racing and Red Bull Technology in a patent infringement litigation accusing the Halo on Formula racing cars and the Aeroscreen on Indy racing cars of infringement of a patent for a strengthening member. Nygaard v. Fédération Internationale de l’Automobile, et al., No. 6:20-CV-00234-ADA (W.D. Tex.).
- Represented Airbus in a patent litigation regarding hypoxic (low oxygen) fire-suppression systems, related inter partes reexaminations, and a related Federal Circuit appeal, including arguing the Federal Circuit appeal, which resulted in a precedential decision that vacated the PTAB’s decision, after which the PTAB affirmed the rejections. Airbus v. Firepass, 941 F.3d 1374 (Fed. Cir. 2019); Airbus v. Firepass, Reexam. No. 95/1555, Appeal No. 2018-4837 (P.T.A.B. Jun. 23, 2020); Airbus v. Firepass, Reexam. No. 95/1553, Appeal No. 2018-4801 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 2, 2018); Firepass v. Airbus, Case No. 09-CV-04234 (E.D.N.Y.).
- Represented Kawasaki in a patent litigation regarding video systems in subway cars, related inter partes reviews, and a related Federal Circuit appeal, including presenting Kawasaki’s arguments at the PTAB hearings, which resulted in the PTAB finding all claims unpatentable, and the Federal Circuit affirming. Kawasaki Rail Car v. Blair, IPR2017-00117 (P.T.A.B. May 2, 2018); Kawasaki Rail Car v. Blair, IPR2017-01036 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 10, 2018); Blair v. Kawasaki Rail Car, Appeal No. 2018-2098 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 8, 2019); Blair v. Kawasaki, Case No. 16-CV-03391 (S.D.N.Y.).
- Represented Toyota in a patent litigation regarding laser cruise control systems, lane departure warning systems, collision warning systems and angular momentum sensors. American GNC v. Toyota, Case No. 19-CV-00174 (E.D. Tex.).
- Represented Toyota in a patent litigation regarding Apple CarPlay. Dale Progress v. Toyota, Case No. 18-CV-00475 (E.D. Tex.).
- Represented Toyota in a patent litigation and related inter partes reviews regarding occupant-classification systems and blind spot monitoring systems. Signal IP v. Toyota, Case No. 15-CV-05162 (C.D. Cal.); Toyota v. Signal IP, IPR2016-00291, IPR2016-00292, IPR2016-00293, IPR2016-01382 (P.T.A.B.).
- Represented Toyota in a patent litigation regarding side curtain airbags. American Vehicular Sciences v. Toyota, Case No. 16-CV-11531 (E.D. Mich.), Case No. 15-CV-01391 (C.D. Cal.).
- Represented Sony in a patent litigation regarding smartphone codecs. Sony Mobile Communications v. EVS Codec Technologies, Case No. 18-CV-09518 (S.D.N.Y.)
- Represented Sony in an ITC patent case and related inter partes reviews regarding DVRs, TV user interfaces and gaming console fan cooling systems. Arris v. Sony, Inv. No. 337-TA-1060 (I.T.C.); Sony v. Arris, IPR2017-01961, IPR2017-01963 (P.T.A.B.).
- Represented Sony in an ITC patent case and related Federal Circuit appeal of inter partes reviews regarding camera 3D imaging technology, which resulted in the Federal Circuit affirming the cancellation of all claims. HumanEyes Technologies v. Sony, Inv. No. 337-TA-842 (I.T.C.); Yissum Research v. Sony, Appeal Nos. 2015-1342, 2015-1343 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 11, 2015).
- Represented Sony in a patent litigation and related inter partes reexaminations regarding user interfaces for interactive videos and DVD/Blu-ray discs, which resulted in the cancellation of hundreds of claims and two favorable Markman decisions. Monkeymedia v. Sony, Case No. 10-CV-00533 (W.D. Tex.); Sony v. Monkeymedia, Reexam. Nos. 90/011,365, 95/001,504, 95/001,506, 95/001,630, 95/002,256 (P.T.O.); Sony v. Monkeymedia, Appeal No. 2015-06133 (P.T.A.B.).
- Represented KID-Systeme (Airbus subsidiary) in a patent and breach of contract litigation regarding aircraft cabin electrical systems. Lufthansa v. KID Systeme, Case No. 14-CV-01821 (W.D. Wash.).
- Represented inventor groups pro bono as amicus curiae in a Supreme Court appeal regarding laches in patent cases. SCA Hygiene Products v. First Quality Baby Products, Appeal No. 15-297 (S. Ct.).
- Represented Bosch in patent litigations regarding video surveillance technology, which resulted in a dismissal for lack of standing. Criminal Activity Surveillance v. Bosch Security Systems, Case No. 11-CV-00494 (E.D. Tex.); Bosch Security Systems v. Criminal Activity Surveillance, Case No. 13-CV-00296 (D. Del.).
- Represented Bosch in patent litigations regarding acceleration sensors, which resulted in a favorable Markman decision. Wacoh v. Bosch, Case No. 09-CV-10119 (E.D. Mich.); Wacoh v. Bosch, Case No. 10-CV-00617 (D. Del.).
- Represented Deutsche Telekom and foreign T-Mobile mobile carriers in a patent litigation regarding international mobile phone technology, and a related Federal Circuit appeal, which resulted in a dismissal that was affirmed on appeal. Technology Patents v. Deutsche Telekom, Case No. 07-CV-03012 (D. Md.); Technology Patents v. T-Mobile (UK), Appeal No. 2011-1581 (Fed. Cir. Oct. 17, 2012).
- Represented Medinol in a patent litigation regarding coronary stents, including a bench trial and a related Federal Circuit appeal. Medinol v. Cordis, Case No. 13-CV-01408 (S.D.N.Y.); Medinol v. Cordis, Appeal No. 2015-1027 (Fed. Cir.).
- Supreme Court Shuts Door on Appeals Challenging Issues Related to IPR Institution Decisions, NYIPLA, The Report, Spring 2020
- A Window Into PTAB Derivations, Law360, February 8, 2019
- The RAND Modified Hypothetical Negotiation, IP Strategist, June 7, 2013
- Thryv Bars Federal Circuit From Reviewing PTAB Real-Party-In-Interest Determinations, May 26, 2020
- Supreme Court Shuts Door on Appeals Challenging Issues Related to IPR Institution Decisions, April 28, 2020
- Federal Circuit Holds that IPR Joinder Provision Cannot Be Used to Join the Same Petitioner or Add New Issues, April 8, 2020
- A Federal Circuit Reminder About the Importance of Evidence of the Knowledge of Those Skilled in the Art, December 2, 2019
- USPTO Publishes Update to PTAB Trial Practice Guide, August 29, 2018
- Supreme Court Reinstates Venue Limitations in Patent Cases, May 24, 2017
- The Supreme Court Holds that Laches Can No Longer Be Used as a Defense Against Damages Claims in Patent Cases Brought within the Patent Act’s Six-Year Limitations Period, March 24, 2017
- Supreme Court Agrees to Hear Important Patent Venue Appeal, December 21, 2016
- “Microsoft v. AT&T: The Supreme Court Grapples With How to Treat Software Under § 271(f) of the Patent Act”, The Intellectual Property Strategist, Vol. 13, No. 10, July 2007.
- Keurig Perks Up the Topic: Canadian and U.S. Perspectives on Patent Exhaustion, 2014 Intellectual Property Institute of Canada Annual Meeting, Halifax, Nova Scotia, October 2014
- McGill University (LL.B. & B.C.L. 1995 (Great Distinction)), McGill Law Journal
- Queen’s University (B.Sc. Engineering Physics 1991 (First Class Honours))
- New York
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. Supreme Court
- Law Society of Ontario (non-practicing)
- New York Intellectual Property Law Association, Amicus Curiae Committee and PTAB Committee
- Intellectual Property Owners Association, U.S. Post-Grant Patent Office Practice Committee
- Federal Circuit Bar Association