Karl J. Kramer is a trial and litigation lawyer with a particular focus on intellectual property matters, including patent and trade secret litigation for high-technology clients. He has handled cases for clients in a broad range of technology industries, including biotechnology, computers, networking and semiconductors.

Mr. Kramer is a member of the intellectual property sections of the American Bar Association and California Bar Association.

Mr. Kramer joined Morrison & Foerster in 1995. He previously was a partner with the firm of Brown & Bain.

• Mr. Kramer was lead trial counsel for Fujitsu Limited and related entities in a patent infringement action brought in the ITC and United States District Court by the University of Illinois and Competitive Technologies, Inc. The patents at issue related to circuitry used in flat-panel displays, such as plasma display panels. The ITC complaint for patent infringement was terminated in Fujitsu's favor just weeks before the scheduled trial. After three years of further litigation, the United States District Court entered final judgment for Fujitsu. The University appealed the final judgment. Mr. Kramer briefed and argued the appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed the final judgment in favor of Fujitsu Limited.
• Mr. Kramer represented Altera Corporation in a maskwork and tortious interference action filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California against Clear Logic Inc. The case was only the second case ever brought under the Semiconductor Chip Protection Act. After a two week trial, the jury found for Altera Corporation on all claims. Mr. Kramer briefed and argued the appeal to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, which affirmed on all grounds the final judgment in favor of Altera Corporation.
• Mr. Kramer was lead trial counsel for Stanford University in an action asserting certain of the University's HIV technology patents. After a Markman hearing, the United States District Court for the Northern District of California agreed with all of the University's positions on claim construction. The case settled shortly after the Court rejected defendant's motion for summary judgment.