Professional Biography
Image of Chad Campbell

Chad S. Campbell Partner

  • Phoenix

    D +1.602.351.8393

    F +1.602.648.7193

    Phoenix

    2901 N. Central Avenue, Suite 2000

    Phoenix, AZ

    +1.602.351.8393

    CSCampbell@perkinscoie.com

loader

OVERVIEW

EXPERIENCE

Experience

Patent Litigation

TiVo Inc. v. AT&T Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Represented Microsoft as an intervenor in a case filed by TiVo against AT&T alleging infringement of three patents related to DVR technology.

Microsoft Corporation v. TiVo Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Represented Microsoft in a case alleging infringement of seven Microsoft patents related to set-top box technology.

Microprocessor Enhancement Corporation, et al. v. STMicroelectronics N.V., et al.

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Defended STMicro in action alleging infringement of patent related to conditional execution in a pipelined processor.

St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants Inc. v. Acer Inc., et al.

U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Representing Intel Corporation as intervenor-defendant in patent infringement action filed against Intel customers alleging infringement of patents relating to chipset technology.

Optimum Processing Solutions, L.L.C. v. Advanced Micro Devices Inc., et al.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia
Defended STMicroelectronics in patent infringement suit filed in the Northern District of Georgia. The patent relates to dynamically reconfigurable holographic intraconnections in a computer.

Microprocessor Enhancement Corporation v. Intel Corporation

U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
Federal Circuit Court of Appeals
Defended Intel Corporation in patent action alleging infringement by IA-64 microprocessors. Patent relates to conditional execution of machine instructions in a pipelined processor. Summary judgment of noninfringement, which the Federal Circuit affirmed. 520 F.3d 1367 (Fed. Cir. 2008)

Qualcomm Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Products Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Defended Maxim Integrated Products Inc. in a patent infringement and trade secret action regarding cell phone receiver chips. Won favorable rulings on patent claims and convinced motions panel of Federal Circuit to stay a preliminary injunction entered on the trade secret claims on grounds that Maxim was likely to succeed on merits of its appeal. Case subsequently settled. 156 F. App'x. 306 (Fed. Cir. 2005)

Ancora Technologies Inc v. Toshiba America Information Systems Inc, et al.

U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington
Defended Microsoft and three of its OEM customers in a case alleging infringement of a patent involving the pre-installation of Windows’s Vista operating systems on OEM PC products sold world wide.

Microchip Technology Inc. v. U.S. Philips, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Represented Microchip against patent claims by Philips. Case settled after Microchip successfully opposed Philips' attempt to compel arbitration in both the district court and on appeal to the Federal Circuit. 367 F.3d 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2004)

Scheduling.com v. Eclipsys Corporation

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
Defended Scheduling.com in patent infringement case involving medical software. Claims included trade secret and contract issues arising from employee departures. After winning summary judgment on most claims, including attorneys' fees, in favor of Scheduling.com and its employees, the case settled favorably. CIV 99-446 TUC WDB

Linear Technology Inc. v. Maxim Integrated Products Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Defended Maxim Integrated Products Inc. in action alleging infringement of patent on switching voltage regulator.

Intel Corporation v. Information Technology Innovation, LLC

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois
Represented Intel in patent declaratory judgment action involving fabrication modeling software. Case settled favorably just before Markman hearing.

Stragent, LLC, et al. v. Freescale Semiconductor Inc., et al.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Defended Lattice Semiconductor Corporation in patent infringement case relating to field programmable gate arrays (FPGAs). The patent at issue involves hardware circuits for conducting cyclic redundancy checking.

Bender v. STMicroelectronics Inc.

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Defended STMicro in an action alleging infringement of patent related to current feedback amplifiers.

Stragent, LLC v. STMicroelectronics Inc., et al.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Represented STMicro in a patent infringement action alleging that certain AUTOSAR-compliant microcontrollers and software infringe on a patent related to sharing information in a distributed system.

NorthPeak Wireless, LLC v. 3Com Corporation, et al.

Defending Intel and its customers in patent matter accusing 802.11b-compliant (WiFi) products.

TASER International Inc. v. Stinger Systems Inc.

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
Lead counsel for TASER International Inc. in enforcement of three patents relating to advanced electronic control device (ECD) technology.

Semcon Tech LLC v. Intel Corporation

U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon
U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
Defended Intel in patent case relating to chemical mechanical polishing (CMP) techniques for use in the manufacture of semiconductor devices.

Stragent, LLC and SeeSaw Foundation v. Intel Corporation

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Defended Intel in patent infringement case relating to CRC polynomial circuits. Obtained a jury verdict of noninfringement and invalidity.

Intellectual Property Litigation

Syntek Semiconductor Corporation v. Microchip Technology Inc.

U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona
Defended Microchip Technology Inc. in a copyright infringement lawsuit brought by Syntek seeking to invalidate Microchip’s copyright registration for microcode in the PIC16C5X microcontroller family. Obtained summary judgment that registration is valid. The Ninth Circuit referred the matter to the U.S. Copyright Office under the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. Won on summary judgment and attorneys' fees awarded. Reinstated judgment was affirmed in second appeal to the Ninth Circuit.

Intel Corporation v. Advanced Micro Devices, Inc.

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Represented Intel in a copyright claim against Advanced Micro Devices regarding imbedded "ICE" microcode in Intel's 80486 microprocessors. District court had stayed a copyright action brought by Intel against AMD pending final state court appellate review of an arbitration proceeding. Case settled after favorable liability decision, resulting in payment of $58 million to Intel and a permanent injunction. In a parallel case about Intel's 80386 microprocessor, we persuaded the Ninth Circuit to reverse a district court's Colorado River stay on behalf of Intel, and the Supreme Court to decline review. 12 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 1993), cert. denied, 512 U.S. 1205 (1994)

Cyrix Corporation, et al. v. Intel Corporation, et al.

U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
Counsel for Intel Corporation in antitrust counterclaim brought by Cyrix alleging violations of § 1 and § 2 of the Sherman Act and Section 3 of the Clayton Act regarding sale of 386 and 486 microprocessors. Case settled during trial. (1993 - 1994)

Litigation

InSyst Ltd. v. Applied Materials, Inc., et al.

State Court of California
Defended Applied Materials Inc. in an action alleging breach of contract, fraud, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, conspiracy and unjust enrichment. The technology at issue was Advanced Process Control algorithm and software for semiconductor fabrication equipment. Obtained jury verdict for Applied Materials.

Tucker v. Intel Corporation

U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Defended Intel in a putative shareholder class action. Won on summary judgment.

Fitzpatrick, et al. v. Intel Corporation

Defended client in putative class action involving transfers of unclaimed or abandoned stock to California Controller. Dismissal of all claims.

NEWS

RELATED INFORMATION

Areas of Focus

Bar and Court Admissions

  • Arizona

  • California

  • U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

  • U.S. District Court for the Central District of California

  • U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona

  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

Education

  • Arizona State University, Sandra Day O'Connor College of Law, J.D.,
    summa cum laude
    , 1988,
    Executive Editor, Arizona State Law Journal
  • Brigham Young University, B.A.,
    summa cum laude
    , 1985

Highlights

Best Lawyers Lawyer of the Year 2015 logo