Verhoeven, Charles K.

Charles K. Verhoeven

Partner

  Biography

Charles K. Verhoeven is the head of the firm's Northern California Offices.  Mr. Verhoeven is recognized as one of the top litigators in the United States.  Here are some examples of recognition Mr. Verhoeven has received over the last decade:

Chambers USA has repeatedly ranked Mr. Verhoeven in "Band One" for Intellectual Property Patent Litigation (2013, 2012, 2011), identifying Mr. Verhoeven as “an incredibly smart attorney” and noting his "incredible presentation in court."  Multiple sources told Chambers USA that Mr. Verhoeven is “excellent at cross-examination,” and noted his "ability to communicate very difficult jargon in a way that is easy for a jury to understand."   Chambers USA has also repeatedly listed him as one of the 45 "leading individuals" in California in the field of intellectual property.

Mr. Verhoeven has repeatedly been named by California's The Daily Journal as one of the "Top 100 Lawyers" in the State (2012, 2011, 2010).  Mr. Verhoeven also has been repeatedly elected to The Daily Journal's "Top 75 Intellectual Property Litigators" (2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, 2009) and "Top 30 IP Lawyers" (2008, 2005).  According to the Journal:  "Verhoeven has become a giant on the state's intellectual property litigation scene."

In March 2012, Mr. Verhoeven won Managing IP's award as the "Outstanding IP Practitioner" in the United States.  Mr. Verhoeven and his colleagues at Quinn Emanuel also won Managing IP's awards for "Best ITC Practice" in the US (2013, 2012) and for best patent litigation firm – US West (2012).

In January 2012, Mr. Verhoeven was named by The American Lawyer as one of five finalists for its "Litigator of the Year" competition.  The American Lawyer also awarded Mr. Verhoeven and his colleagues "Intellectual Property Litigation Department of the Year" for 2010.  The American Lawyer elected Quinn Emanuel one of two finalists for the same award in 2012.

In 2011, Mr. Verhoeven was named a "Client Service All Star" in BTI Consulting Group's survey of corporate counsel.  In June 2010, Mr. Verhoeven was profiled by The National Law Journal as one of 10 top lawyers in "Winning," the NLJ's annual profile of the most successful litigators in the United States.

In 2008, Mr. Verhoeven was named one of the top 50 attorneys in the US under the age of 45 by IP Law and Business.  In 2007, Mr. Verhoeven was named by The American Lawyer as one of its "Fab Fifty," which was The American Lawyer's list of the top fifty litigators in the United States under the age of 45.  In 2002, Mr. Verhoeven was recognized by California Law Business as one of the top 20 lawyers in California under 40 years old.  Mr. Verhoeven obtained the second largest IP verdict in the United States in 2002 (source IP Law and Business, April 2003).

Mr. Verhoeven's record as lead counsel before the Federal Circuit is 16-2-2. 

Mr. Verhoeven has a national practice and has litigated in Arizona, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington, Washington D.C., Wisconsin, as well as throughout California.  Mr. Verhoeven's IP practice has involved a wide range of technologies, including the internet, smart phone, tablet and computer hardware and software and systems, cable and cellular communications, semiconductor and storage devices, manufacturing equipment and processes, packaging, MRI and mass spectrometry equipment, polymers, medical devices, DNA sequencing and other biotechnologies.

In addition to IP, Mr. Verhoeven has litigated in the areas of antitrust, entertainment, real estate and complex commercial litigation.

  Representative Clients

  • Google
  • IBM
  • Qualcomm
  • Genentech
  • Cisco
  • Samsung
  • Time Warner Cable
  • Bally Technologies
  • Dow Chemical
  • Yahoo!

  Notable Representations

Trials and Arbitrations (Lead Counsel)

  • Obtained a defense jury verdict of patent invalidity and non-infringement for a major internet technology company in an Eastern District of Texas trial in which plaintiff sought $600 million in damages.
  • Obtained a defense jury verdict of patent invalidity and non-infringement for an internet technology company in an Eastern District of Texas trial in which plaintiff sought $128 million in damages.
  • Obtained a plaintiff jury verdict of $118.3 million and a judgment of $134 million for a plaintiff financial products company in a misappropriation of trade secrets and breach of confidentiality agreement in an Eastern District of Missouri trial against a major insurance company.
  • Obtained a defense jury verdict of patent invalidity and non-infringement for an internet digital media delivery company in a five-week District of Massachusetts trial in which plaintiff sought in excess of $200 million in damages.
  • Obtained a plaintiff jury verdict of $9 million in compensatory damages and a finding of willful infringement for a media and technology company in a patent infringement trial in the Northern District of California involving word disambiguation software technology.
  • Obtained a defense judgment for a defendant assisted living company in a Santa Ana California Superior Court trial in which the plaintiff claimed $750 million in damages due to corporate self dealing during a merger transaction.
  • Obtained a plaintiff jury verdict of $5 million in compensatory damages and a finding of willful infringement for a plaintiff medical device company in a patent infringement trial in the Central District of California.
  • Obtained a defense judgment for a satellite broadcasting company in a two-week arbitration before a panel of three arbitrators in a case in which the plaintiff claimed $30 million in damages due to an alleged breach of a complex business contract.

International Trade Commission Proceedings (Lead Counsel)

  • On behalf of complainant, obtained a limited exclusion order and cease and desist order from the US ITC Commission barring respondent Apple from importing ATT versions of the iPhone 4, iPhone 3GS, iPhone 3, iPad 3G, iPad 2 3G.
  • On behalf of respondent, obtained an order of “no violation of Section 337” in a three patent trial brought by Apple against our client, a major smart phone maker, seeking to exclude virtually all of our client's smart phones from importation into the US.
  • On behalf of multiple respondents, making up virtually the entire semiconductor industry, obtained an order of "no violation of Section 337" in a six patent trial brought by Rambus, in which Rambus sought to exclude the importation of billions worth of semiconductor products.  The ALJ found all six patents invalid and several of the patents unenforceable due to spoliation of evidence.
  • On behalf of respondent, obtained an order of "no violation of Section 337" as to two operating system patents in a trial brought by Apple against our client, a foreign smart phone maker.  Apple initially sought exclusion based on eight operating system patents, but ended up dropping six of the eight patents by the end of trial.  The ALJ found "no violation" as to the two remaining operating system patents.
  • On behalf of respondent, obtained an order of "no violation of Section 337" as to eight of nine patents in a trial brought by Microsoft against our client, a major smart phone maker, seeking to exclude our client from importing its smart phones into the US.  The remaining patent was designed around.
  • On behalf of respondent, obtained an order of "no violation of Section 337" in a three patent trial seeking to exclude our client, a global telecommunications company and the then largest mobile handset manufacturer in the world, from importing its handsets into the United States.
  • On behalf of respondent, obtained an order of “no violation of Section 337” by the ITC Commission in a five patent trial brought by the then largest telecommunications carrier against our client, a major cable company, in which the carrier sought to exclude the importation of all set top boxes by our client.

Summary Judgments (Lead Counsel)

  • In the Eastern District of Texas, won summary judgment of non-infringement on all asserted patents on behalf of a major software technology company and three smart phone OEMs in a case involving virtual machine software and hardware technology, in which plaintiff sought in excess of $650 million in past damages.
  • In the Eastern District of Texas, won summary judgment of non-infringement on all asserted patents on behalf of two internet technology companies in a case involving internet search technology in which plaintiff sought $400 million for past damages.
  • In the Eastern District of Texas, won summary judgment on behalf of our client, a major networking company, dismissing plaintiff's claims in a patent case on the ground that the purported inventor on the patent did not own the patent by virtue of an employment assignment agreement with his prior employer.  Plaintiff had sought in excess of $1 billion in past damages.
  • After obtaining a writ of mandamus from the Federal Circuit transferring the action from the Eastern District of Texas to Northern California, won summary judgment of non-infringement of all asserted claims on the two patents asserted by plaintiff for our client, a biotech company, in a patent case involving HCMV enhancer technology in which plaintiff sought $1.6 billion in damages.
  • Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on behalf of over 30 cellular telephone manufacturer defendants in a patent case brought by the University of Texas in its home town of Austin, where the university sought in excess of $1.5 billion in damages.
  • In the District of Nevada, in a five patent case brought by IGT against our client, a major gaming company, of won summary judgment dismissing all five patents based on a combination of rulings of non-infringement and invalidity where IGT had sought damages in excess of $350 million in damages.
  • In the Northern District of California, obtained summary judgment of invalidity due to obviousness on all four asserted patents, based on KSR Int'l v. Teleflex Inc., in a case involving Internet media search and playback technology.  This was the first reported post-KSR summary judgment decision resulting in dismissal based on obviousness.
  • In the Eastern District of Texas, won summary judgment of non-infringement on all asserted claims on behalf of an internet technology company in a case involving internet search technology in which plaintiff sought $100 million in damages.
  • In the Eastern District of Virginia, won summary judgment of non-infringement on behalf of two major internet technology companies in a case involving advertising action technology in which plaintiff sought over $150 million in damages.
  • In the Eastern District of Texas, won summary judgment of invalidity as to all asserted claims in a patent case involving internet search technology.
  • In the Central District of California, obtained a ruling on summary judgment for a plaintiff's packaging company that defendant had infringed two of plaintiff's patents.
  • In the Northern District of California, obtained a ruling on summary judgment for a defendant entertainment company that invalidated the independent claims of a notable on-line music patent that had been asserted against over 200 on-line music companies.  The court found non-infringement as to the remaining claims, found the case was exceptional and awarded defendant its costs and fees.
  • In the District of Nevada, won summary judgment of invalidity on one asserted patent and summary judgment of non-infringement on the remaining asserted patent on behalf of a major gaming company.
  • In the Northern District of California, obtained a ruling on summary judgment for an Internet software manufacturer that invalidated three Internet protocol patents that had been asserted against 39 Fortune 500 companies.
  • In the Eastern District of New York, obtained stipulated judgment of non-infringement on all asserted claims following favorable claim construction ruling for Google Inc., in a case involving online advertising systems web server technology in which plaintiff sought over $100 million in damages.

  Practice Areas

  • Intellectual Property Litigation
  • International Trade Commission Proceedings
  • Life Sciences Litigation
  • Antitrust & Trade Regulation
  • Lender Liability & Other Banking Financial Institution Litigation
  • Domestic U.S. Arbitration
  • International Arbitration
  • Media & Entertainment Litigation
  • Patent Litigation
  • Real Estate Litigation
  • Trade Secret Litigation
  • Internet Litigation
  • Appellate Practice

  Education

  • University of Iowa School of Law
    (J.D., with high distinction, 1988)
    • Iowa Law Review:
      • Articles Editor, 1987-1988
      • Member, 1986-1987
  • University of Iowa
    (B.B.A., with distinction, 1985)

  Admissions

The State Bar of California; The State Bar of New York

  Prior Associations

  • Cravath, Swaine & Moore:
    • Associate, 1988-1993

Publications and Lectures

  • "South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe:  Terminating Federal Protection with 'Plain' Statements,"  72 Iowa L. Rev. 1117 (1987)

Professional Activities

  • Member, Association of the Bar of the City of New York
  • Member, American Bar Association