Ching-Lee Fukuda
Ching-Lee Fukuda is a New York-based partner in Morrison Foerster’s Intellectual Property Litigation Group and a nationally recognized IP trial lawyer, with nearly three decades of experience handling high-stakes patent and trade secret litigation. She represents clients in complex IP disputes before federal district courts, the International Trade Commission, PTAB, the Federal Circuit, and various arbitration tribunals.
Ching-Lee’s practice focuses on cutting-edge technologies in medical devices and medtech, software, electronics, and chemicals. She has secured significant trial and appellate victories, including high-value jury verdicts and precedent-setting Federal Circuit decisions:
- Ching-Lee led a damages trial team for Bayer that secured a jury award of $155 million, which ranks among the top 10 largest patent verdicts in Delaware.
- She successfully defended Nevro in a six-year litigation saga against Boston Scientific’s assertion of 20 patents and more than 60 trade secrets, with Boston Scientific ultimately paying Nevro $85 million.
- She led an appellate team for CardioNet that obtained a rare Federal Circuit precedential opinion reversing the district court to uphold the patent eligibility of a software patent directed to cardiac monitoring technology.
Ching-Lee has also led IP arbitration teams and has handled more than 100 PTAB proceedings, including inter partes reviews (IPRs) and post-grant reviews (PGRs), representing both patent owners and challengers.
In addition to her litigation practice, Ching-Lee has been a member of Law360’s Intellectual Property Editorial Advisory Board, a member of ACI’s Advisory Board for Women Leaders in IP Law, and Co-Chair of the Intellectual Property Committee for the National Asian Pacific American Bar Association. In 2023, Ching-Lee became a founding member of Lead Counsel Summit, a non-profit organization that trains and supports IP litigators who are on the cusp of serving as lead counsel, to help them master the courtroom, clients, and team skills needed to move from second-chair to first-chair roles. Since 2022, she has been the author of the treatise, Winning the Patent Damages Case, published by Matthew Bender (LexisNexis).
Clients highlight Ching-Lee’s formidable courtroom presence and sharp analytical approach, emphasizing her ability to deliver successful outcomes in particularly challenging matters. She has received a range of industry honors, including the following:
- Ranked by Chambers USA for IP: Patent in New York and Life Sciences: IP/Patent Litigation Nationwide, and by Chambers Global for Life Sciences IP/Patent Litigation
- Named “Patent Lawyer of the Year” by Women in Business Law Americas in 2024.
- Four times shortlisted by Managing IP for “Litigator of the Year – New York” (2021, 2023, 2025, 2026).
- Recognized by LMG Life Sciences as “Post-Grant Proceedings Attorney of the Year” for two consecutive years (2020-2021).
- Earned four “Impact Case of the Year” distinctions from LMG Life Sciences and inclusion in the National Law Journal Verdicts Hall of Fame (2021) and Top 10 Commercial Litigation Verdicts in the United States (2019).
Ching-Lee earned her J.D. from Fordham University School of Law and her B.S.E., with honors, in mechanical and aerospace engineering, from Princeton University.
Experience
Nevro Corp. v. Mayo Clinic Ventures et al.
Lead counsel for Nevro in securing wins on all counts brought by Nevro and by Mayo in arbitration, relating to patent and licensing issues in the neuromodulation field. Successfully obtained an injunction in the Northern District of California against Mayo’s continued breach of contract. A two-day arbitration hearing was held in Minneapolis, during which 19 fact and expert witnesses were examined by both sides. The arbitrator found in favor of Nevro on all counts, denied all of Mayo’s counts in their entirety (including Mayo’s royalty demand for many millions of dollars), and ordered Mayo to return control of patent prosecution to Nevro, pay Nevro’s past prosecution costs, and pay Nevro’s fees for the California action.
Bayer Healthcare, LLC v. Baxalta Inc. et al.
Led a damages trial team that successfully obtained a jury award of US$155 million for Bayer that ranks among the 10 largest patent verdicts in the District of Delaware for the past decade, which was recently affirmed by the Federal Circuit. After a six-day jury trial involving 18 witnesses, the jury found in favor of Bayer across the board. Also obtained supplemental damages and interest, bringing the total past damages award to US$182 million. Technology involves recombinant factor VIII for treating hemophilia.
CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc.
Led an appellate team that successfully obtained a significant § 101 patent eligibility win for CardioNet at the Federal Circuit. In a precedential opinion, the Federal Circuit reversed the District of Massachusetts and upheld the eligibility of CardioNet’s remote cardiac monitoring software patent.
Certain Audio Processing Hardware, Software and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-1026
Co-led an ITC team that successfully defended Apple at the ITC against three patents involving audio processing and noise suppression technology. After a one-week bench trial, obtained initial determination finding of no infringement, no technical domestic industry, and no standing. Commission affirmed finding of no violation based on no technical domestic industry.
Zirvi v. Illumina, Inc. et al.
Successfully defended Illumina in a District of New Jersey case involving correction of inventorship and conspiracy claims relating to DNA sequencing technology. After considering Illumina’s motion to dismiss and motion for sanctions, Court dismissed the plaintiff’s claims in their entirety, putting to an end over a decade of serial litigation by the plaintiff.
Boston Scientific Neuromodulation Corporation v. Nevro Corp.
Successfully defended Nevro in three cases in the District of Delaware relating to spinal cord stimulation and implantable medical device technology. After Boston Scientific asserted 20 patents and over 60 trade secrets, turned the tables when the six-year litigation resolved with plaintiff Boston Scientific paying Nevro US$85 million. Defeated Boston Scientific’s § 101 challenge to Nevro’s core paresthesia-free patents. Lead counsel for Nevro in a series of IPR proceedings and appeals that successfully invalidated claims of 11 Boston Scientific patents.
Cranial Technologies, Inc. v. OttoBock SE & Co. KGAA and Active Life, LLC
Lead counsel for Cranial Technologies in a five-patent case in the Central District of California relating to technology for manufacturing cranial orthotics to correct infant head deformities. Successfully upheld the eligibility of the asserted software patents during a § 101 challenge during a motion to dismiss and again at summary judgment.
PRCM Advisors, LLC v. Two Harbors Investment Corp.
Led a team for Pine River Capital Management in asserting trade secret claims under DTSA and other IP claims in SDNY for Two Harbors’ improper taking of all software and other IP owned by Pine River relating to the management of mortgage REITs. Defeated Two Harbors’ motion to dismiss and summary judgment motions. Two Harbors paid $375 million to PRCM in settlement.
Intuitive Surgical, Inc. v. Auris Health, Inc.
Lead counsel for Auris Health, a subsidiary of J&J, in a series of IPR proceedings challenging the validity of multiple Intuitive Surgical patents asserted in the District of Delaware. The PTAB invalidated all claims of a key asserted Intuitive Surgical patent relating to surgical robotics technology but upheld the claims of two other patents. Then led an appellate team that argued all three appeals on the same day, and successfully obtained an affirmance of Auris’ PTAB win below, at the same time successfully vacated and remanded most claims of the other two patents upheld by the PTAB.
Microsoft Corp. v. SynKloud Tech., LLC / SynKloud Tech., LLC v. HP, Inc.
Successfully invalidated on behalf of Microsoft and HP, three of four remote storage patents asserted by SynKloud in the District of Delaware, under § 101 on motions to dismiss. The case settled shortly thereafter.
I-Mab Biopharma v. Inhibrx, Inc. and Brendan Eckelman
Lead counsel for I-Mab in asserting trade secret claims under DTSA in the District of Delaware relating to discovery and development of bispecific antibodies for cancer treatment. Defeated Inhibrx’s motion to dismiss on all grounds raised after a full day evidentiary hearing in which both parties’ highest level of executives were examined on the stand. The court also denied the large majority of Inhibrx’s summary judgment and other pre-trial motions. A jury trial was held in late 2024 with the jury finding in favor of the defendants on a subset of the trade secrets, with a later bench trial to address I-Mab’s remaining trade secret claims. I-Mab sought compensatory and enhanced damages of over US$400 million in total. The parties reached a settlement in early 2025.
Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma, Inc. et al.
Successfully defeated Antares’ motion for preliminary injunction in the District of Delaware in a “bet-the-company” patent infringement action involving concentrated methotrexate injection to treat rheumatoid arthritis. Federal Circuit affirmed and, in a precedential decision, found all claims on appeal invalid for failing the “original patent” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 251 for reissue claims.
CardioNet, LLC et al. v. MedTel24, Inc. et al.
Obtained a bench trial win for plaintiff BioTelemetry (formerly CardioNet) in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania finding MedTel24 in contempt of a consent judgment, and finding all five CardioNet patents infringed, valid, and enforceable. MedTel24 was ordered to deliver to BioTelemetry all its hardware, software, and documentation related to the infringing technology at the penalty of US$20,000 for each day that the materials were not delivered. CardioNet was awarded its lost profits and lawyers’ fees.
Rankings
Ranked for New York Intellectual Property: Patent
Chambers USA 2021-2026
Ranked for Nationwide Life Sciences: IP/Patent Litigation
Chambers USA 2025-2026
Ranked for Life Sciences: IP/Patent Litigation
Chambers Global 2026
Named “Patent Lawyer of the Year”
Women in Business Law Americas 2024
Finalist for “Litigator of the Year – New York”
Managing IP 2021, 2023, 2025, 2026
Recognized as “Post-Grant Proceedings Attorney of the Year”
LMG Life Sciences 2020-2021
Awarded “Impact Case of the Year”
LMG Life Sciences 2015, 2019, 2021, 2022
Verdicts Hall of Fame
National Law Journal 2021
Top 10 Commercial Litigation Verdicts in the United States 2019
“Litigator of the Week” Runner Up
AmLaw 2019
“Litigation Star”
Benchmark Litigation 2026
“IP Star”
Managing IP 2019–2026
“Life Sciences Star”
LMG Life Sciences 2018–2025
“Top 50 Women in PTAB Trials”
PTAB Bar Association 2019–2025
“Top 250 Women in IP” (Worldwide)
Managing IP 2019–2023
“500 Leading Litigators in America”
Lawdragon 2022–2026
Recognized for IP Litigation
The Best Lawyers in America 2020–2026
IAM Patent 1000 2015–2026
Recognized for Patent Litigation
Legal 500 United States 2025-2026
Trade Secrets Litigation
Legal 500 United States 2025-2026