Charles S. Barquist is a partner in the firm’s Intellectual Property Group. Mr. Barquist focuses his practice on business litigation including patents and other intellectual property, antitrust and unfair competition, and dispute resolution for technology companies.
Mr. Barquist has achieved outstanding results in patent litigation for several foreign and domestic clients in U.S. courts and before the International Trade Commission (ITC). Successful trial results include defense wins for EchoStar in the Eastern District of Texas and the ITC, and a plaintiff’s verdict against Microsoft on behalf of an individual inventor. Mr. Barquist won summary judgment of non-infringement for Capital One against prolific inventor and litigant Walker Digital, a victory affirmed by the Federal Circuit. Mr. Barquist led a team that won a $35 million settlement in a patent infringement action in Minnesota for our client Angeion Corporation, a manufacturer of implantable defibrillators, and a favorable settlement for Veeco Instruments in enforcing its patents covering atomic force microscopy. Other patent litigation has involved technologies such as smartphones, virtual cameras, medical lasers, hard disk drives, infrared thermometers, rechargeable batteries, digital satellite receivers, and environmental stress screening equipment, in such jurisdictions as Delaware, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and California (including San Diego, San Francisco, and Los Angeles).
Mr. Barquist also has conducted numerous adversarial licensing negotiations with patent holders in the U.S., Asia and Europe. He has handled a large number of copyright, trademark and unfair competition matters on behalf of domestic and international clients, including a leading CD/DVD replicator, a Big Five accounting firm, a major telecommunications company, an airline, a major toy manufacturer, and a number of Japanese electronics and food products companies.
In addition, Mr. Barquist is experienced in other complex commercial and business litigation, including antitrust, products liability and environmental matters. Significant cases include an antitrust action on behalf of SpaceX, a consumer class action against Microstar International, an ICC arbitration in Stockholm involving a turn-key electronics factory in China, an AAA arbitration involving development of a new anti-cancer drug, a products liability trial in New York in which a defense verdict was obtained for a U.S. automaker, representation of a major Wall Street investment bank in a securities fraud arbitration in Chicago in which all claims were dismissed, and the defense of environmental challenges to the harbor improvement plans of a major West Coast port.
Mr. Barquist also has handled a number of pro bono matters, including a challenge to California’s distribution of funds for a federal summer jobs program, which recouped $1 million for the San Francisco program, and the winning of a preliminary injunction requiring water releases to protect environmental values in lower Putah Creek, near Davis, California.
Mr. Barquist is also a leader in the profession. He has served as president of the Los Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association, as chairman of the USC Gould School of Law Intellectual Property Institute, and as chairman of the Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law Section and the International Law Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association.
Mr. Barquist is listed in Global Counsel 3000 as a Recommended Intellectual Property practitioner in Los Angeles and was recognized as a Southern California “Super Lawyer” in every year from 2004 through 2014. He was also selected for inclusion in the 2007-2015 editions of Best Lawyers in America in the specialty of intellectual property law, and is recommended by PLC Which lawyer? in the area of Los Angeles intellectual property. Mr. Barquist is a 2014 recipient of the Burton Award for Legal Achievement which honors excellence in legal writing.
Mr. Barquist received his J.D. from Harvard Law School and his A.B. from the University of Michigan. After earning his law degree, Mr. Barquist clerked for the Honorable Milton Pollack in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.
Certain Toner Cartridges and Components Thereof
(International Trade Commission, 337–TA–918). Representing respondent International Laser Group in pending ITC investigation brought by complainant Canon.
Forgent Networks, Inc. v. EchoStar Communications Corp.
(Eastern District of Texas). Represented EchoStar at trial in the Eastern District of Texas. Mr. Barquist and his team won a jury verdict finding plaintiff’s patent invalid – allegedly covering DVR technology – on three separate grounds.
Walker Digital LLC v. Capital One
(Eastern District of Virginia). Represented Capital One in patent litigation with Walker Digital LLC, involving patents on customized credit accounts. Summary judgment of non-infringement was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Gamecaster LLC v. DreamWorks Animation
(Central District of California). Representing DreamWorks in litigation over virtual camera technology; patent claims rejected through inter partes reexamination at PTO.
Vacation Exchange LLC v. Interval International
(Central District of California). Represented Interval International in litigation over patent covering online timeshare exchange. Patent invalidated on motion to dismiss under Section 101.
Veeco Instruments v. Asylum Research Corp.
(Central District of California). Represented Veeco Instruments in patent litigation with Asylum Research Corporation, involving atomic force microscopes.
CompuFill, LLC v. Walgreen Co., et al.
(Southern District of California). Represented Walmart, CVS, Walgreens, Target and Costco in litigation involving patents on automated prescription refill systems and methods.
Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd. v. Toppoly Optoelectronics Corp.
(Central District of California). Represented TPO Displays Corporation in patent litigation brought by Semiconductor Energy Laboratory Co., Ltd., involving low-temperature polysilicon TFT technology for display panels.
Amado v. Microsoft Corporation
(Central District of California). Represented an individual inventor in patent infringement action against Microsoft Corporation involving software patents. Judgments in excess of $19 million were obtained for our client, following two appeals by Microsoft to the Federal Circuit.
AEM Holdings, Inc. v. Cooper Industries, Inc.
(Central District of California). Represented AEM Holdings, Inc. in patent infringement litigation with Cooper Bussmann over chip fuse technology.
Zenith Electronics v. Thomson, et al.
(Eastern District of Texas). Represented Pioneer Corporation in patent litigation against Zenith Electronics Corporation involving essential patents in digital television technology.
Multi-Format, Inc. v. Amazon.com, et al.
(Central District of California). Represented 11 major retailers in litigation brought by Multi-Format, Inc. over DVD technology; complaint was voluntarily dismissed by plaintiff.
MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc., et al.
(Central District of California). Represented Celltech R&D Ltd. in a patent and antitrust challenge to a settlement of patent litigation; summary judgment was granted in favor of Celltech, the Federal Circuit affirmed the dismissal.
Altera Corp. v. Xilinx, Inc.; In the Matter of Certain Programmable Logic Devices and Products Containing Same
(Northern District of California; 337-TA-453). Represented Altera Corporation in patent infringement trials involving programmable logic devices in district court in San Jose, California, and before the ITC in Washington, D.C.
In the Matter of Certain Set-Top Boxes and Components Thereof
(337-TA-454). Represented EchoStar Communications Corporation as respondent in a patent infringement trial before the ITC in which the Administrative Law Judge found all patents not infringed, and one patent invalid and unenforceable.
Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing v. EchoStar Communications Corp.
(Northern District of California). Represented DISH Network/EchoStar and Express Scripts, Inc. in patent litigation with Ronald A. Katz Technology Licensing involving interactive voice response system technology.