L.J. Chris Martiniak

L.J. Chris Martiniak

Of Counsel

Download V-card

Covington & Burling LLP
One Front Street
San Francisco, CA 94111-5356
Tel: +1 415 591 7004
Fax: +1 415 955 6504



  • University of California at Berkeley, M.S., 1975
    • Mathematics/Computer Science
    • Woodrow Wilson Fellow
  • University of Strathclyde, 1975
    • Fulbright Fellow
  • University of California, Berkeley School of Law, J.D., 1974
    • Order of the Coif
  • University of Wisconsin, Madison, B.S., 1969
    • Mathematics/Physics
    • magna cum laude and Honors
    • Phi Beta Kappa

Bar Admissions

  • California

Chris Martiniak is of counsel in the firm’s San Francisco office.  For many years the primary focus of Mr. Martiniak's practice has been large-scale patent infringement litigation in Federal District Courts and before the International Trade Commission in Section 337 cases.  Mr. Martiniak also has extensive experience in other commercial litigation, including trademark, trade secret, copyright, antitrust, licensing disputes, contracts and business torts.  Mr. Martiniak has tried numerous cases in federal and state courts and at the ITC, and has handled many arbitrations and mediations.  His experience includes service as a special assistant district attorney trying a series of criminal cases to the jury.

Representative Matters

  • Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (IDC v.) (Int’l Chamber of Commerce): Represented Huawei in binding arbitration before an Int’l Chamber of Commerce tribunal to set world-wide FRAND licensing rates for a portfolio of thousands of patents in 50 countries covering both LTE and 3G cellular communication technology.
  • Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (Int’l Trade Comm. Investigation re Wireless Devices with 3G and/or 4G Capabilities, 337-TA-868 ) and (InterDigital v.) (N.D. Del.). Represented Huawei in Section 337 proceeding and related Delaware District Court case brought by InterDigital on patents covering cellular communication technology.
  • Represented a leading smartphone maker in a patent infringement dispute in the Northern District of Illinois, that led to Judge Posner’s groundbreaking decision on patent damages, resulting in dismissal of the suit.
  • Represented a leading smartphone maker in a patent infringement dispute in the Western District of Wisconsin, that led to Judge Crabb’s groundbreaking decision on patent defenses arising from plaintiff’s violation of disclosure requirements of industry standards settings organizations, and FRAND licensing requirements.
  • Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (Int’l Trade Comm. Investigation re Wireless Devices with 3G Capabilities, 337-TA-800 ).  Represented Huawei in Section 337 proceeding brought by InterDigital on patents covering cellular communication technology.  This resulted in a finding of no violation of the 8 asserted patents.
  • Huawei Technologies Co. Ltd. (v. Motorola) (N.D. Ill.).  Represented Huawei in a dispute with Motorola that resulted in an injunction precluding the transfer of Huawei intellectual property in connection with Motorola’s $1.3 billion proposed sale of its cell phone network business to NSN.
  • Meyer Sound Laboratories Incorporated (v. VUE Audiotechnik) (N.D. Ca.): Represented MSL, a company that develops, makes and installs concert sound systems throughout the world, in trade secret and trademark violation case against former executive who left to form a competing company.  Resulted in complete capitulation by defendant.
  • Acqis LLC v. Appro International, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex.).  Represented Hewlett-Packard in this patent infringement case concerning computer “blade server” systems.
  • BTG v. Samsung Electronics (Int’l Trade Comm. Investigation re Certain MLC Flash Memory Devices and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-683).  Represented Samsung Electronics in a Section 337 (ITC) patent infringement proceeding regarding multilevel flash memory.  Prior to a determination, BTG settled on terms favorable to Samsung.
  • Palm, Inc. (Intermec v.) (D.Del.).  Represented Palm in a District of Delaware patent infringement action where Intermec asserted patents on wireless application systems and optical reader devices, and where Palm counterclaimed to assert patents relating to power management.  The court dismissed Intermec’s claims finding no infringement of a valid claim.  Intermec then settled the Palm counterclaims on terms favorable to Palm.
  • Computer Associates International, Inc. (Pavilion Technologies, Inc. v.) (W.D. Tx.).  Defended Computer Associates in a suit alleging infringement of eight patents on neural networks, expert systems and process control.

Honors and Rankings

  • Northern California Super Lawyers, Intellectual Property Litigation (2006, 2012-2014)

Memberships and Affiliations

  • Since 1981, Mr. Martiniak has taught each year a litigation skills course entitled “Pretrial Litigation Practice” at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law (Boalt Hall).
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • American Bar Association, Sections:  Patent Trademark and Copyright
  • State Bar of California, Intellectual Property section
  • Bar Association of San Francisco, Intellectual Property section, Chair (1995-1997)

Publications and Speeches

  • "Basics of Intellectual Property Laws for the Antitrust Practitioner," Antitrust Counterattack in Intellectual Property Litigation Handbook (2010), Author
  • "Patented Redesign May Present Antitrust Risks," Intellectual Property Today (December 2007), Author
  • "Deposition Practice Handbook, Third Edition," Aspen Law Books (2003), Author
Print PDF Word Version Print this page