Esther Kim Chang

Associate | San Francisco

echang@mofo.com | (415) 268-7562

echang@mofo.com
(415) 268-7562

Esther Kim Chang is a senior associate in the firm’s Intellectual Property Group. Ms. Chang represents high-technology and life sciences companies in trade secret and intellectual property cases and specializes in high-stakes, bet-the-company litigation.

Ms. Chang has experience in a wide variety of high-technology and life sciences matters, including autonomous systems, smartphone technology, antibody engineering, medical devices, mobile device management, and analog and digital television technology.  Ms. Chang has successfully managed several complex cases and was the lead trial associate for Uber in the high‑profile Waymo v. Uber litigation relating to the future of autonomous vehicles.  After four days of trial, the case settled on terms that were very favorable for Uber.  Ms. Chang was also a member of the team that successfully tried a high-profile smartphone case leading to a jury verdict of over $1 billion.

Ms. Chang is also a registered patent attorney and is admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO).

Ms. Chang earned a bachelor's degree in chemistry from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a master's degree in chemistry from the University of California, Berkeley. After graduate school, she worked at Morgan Stanley Capital International Barra, where she developed financial models and analytics for portfolio risk management. Ms. Chang received her J.D. from the George Washington University Law School, where she was elected to the Order of the Coif and was a member of the George Washington Law Review.

Show More

Experience

  • (Northern District of California). Successfully defended Uber against far-reaching preliminary injunction motion. Obtained favorable settlement after four days of jury trial.

  • Member of the team that successfully tried a high-profile smartphone case leading to a jury verdict of over $1 billion.

  • Represented multinational corporation in the medical field in high-stakes arbitration with potential damages in the nine figures.  After a two-week evidentiary hearing, a three-arbitrator panel ruled in our client’s favor on every patent – an unusually complete victory for one side in the arbitration context.

  • (Northern District of California). Defended AirWatch in a patent infringement case involving four patents relating to mobile device management technology against a competitor. Obtained favorable settlement after expert discovery.

  • (Eastern District of Texas and Federal Circuit). Represented EchoStar and DISH in case involving analog and digital television technology. Case settled on favorable terms after plaintiff failed to get evidence excluded with pretrial motions.

  • (Western District of Texas and U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit). Secured summary judgment for EchoStar and DISH in case involving satellite television reception equipment. Affirmed on appeal.

  • (Northern District of California, District of New Jersey). Represented PLR IP Holdings/Polaroid and C&A Marketing in pair of cases against GoPro, asserting design patent claims and defending against claims of utility patent infringement, copyright infringement, and false advertising. Defeated early motion for judgment on the pleadings in design patent case, and secured favorable claim construction in utility patent case. Case resolved in a settlement.

  • (Northern District of California). Represented Sling Media in a patent infringement action involving Java hardware acceleration. The firm handled claim construction and summary judgment briefing and arguments, and obtained summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Sling Media.

  • (Eastern District of Texas). Successfully defended Logitech in a patent case involving data processing and home automation systems.

Close

Feedback

Disclaimer

Unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Morrison & Foerster will not be considered confidential, may be disclosed to others pursuant to our Privacy Policy, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Morrison & Foerster. If you are not already a client of Morrison & Foerster, do not include any confidential information in this message. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not properly authorized to do so.