Charles K. Verhoeven
San Francisco Office
Antitrust and Trade Regulation
Banking and Financial Institution Litigation
Entertainment and Media Litigation
Intellectual Property Litigation
International Trade Commission Proceedings
Life Sciences Litigation
Real Estate Litigation
University of Iowa School of Law
(J.D., with high distinction, 1988)
Iowa Law Review:
Articles Editor, 1987-1988
University of Iowa
(B.B.A., with distinction, 1985)
"South Carolina v. Catawba Indian Tribe: Terminating Federal Protection with 'Plain' Statements," 72 Iowa L. Rev. 1117 (1987)
Cravath, Swaine & Moore:
Member, Association of the Bar of the City of New York
Member, American Bar Association
Member, The State Bar of California; Member, The State Bar of New York
Send to a friend
Charles K. Verhoeven is the head of the firm's Northern California Offices. Mr. Verhoeven is a trial lawyer. Although he has tried cases in a diverse set of substantive areas, Mr. Verhoeven is best known for trying intellectual property cases.
In September 2010, Mr. Verhoeven was named by the Daily Journal as one of the "Top 100" lawyers in California. 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 January 2010, The American Lawyer awarded Mr. Verhoeven and his colleagues "Intellectual Property Litigation Department of the Year." In 2008, Mr. Verhoeven was named one of the top 50 attorneys under the age of 45 by IP Law and Business. In 2007, Mr. Verhoeven was named by The American Lawyer as one of the "Fab Fifty," which was The American Lawyer's list of the top fifty litigators in the United States under the age of 45. In 2008 and 2005, Mr. Verhoeven was recognized by the California Daily Journal as one of the "top 30 IP lawyers" in the state. The Journal reported: "Verhoeven has become a giant on the state's intellectual property litigation scene." In 2002, Mr. Verhoeven was recognized by California Law Business as one of the top 20 lawyers in California under 40 years old. Chambers USA has repeatedly listed him as one of the 45 "leading individuals" in California in the field of intellectual property. 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 14-0.
Mr. Verhoeven has a national practice and has litigated in Arizona, Delaware, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pittsburgh, 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, computer hardware and software and systems, cable and cellular communications, semiconductor and storage devices, manufacturing equipment and processes, packaging, 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.
Obtained a defense jury verdict of patent invalidity and non-infringement for a major Internet search company in an E.D.TX trial in which plaintiff sought in excess of $600 million in damages.
Obtained a defense jury verdict of patent invalidity and non-infringement for a major Internet search company in an E.D.TX trial in which plaintiff sought $128 million in damages.
Obtained an order of "no violation of Section 337" in an ITC patent trial seeking to exclude our client, a global telecommunications company and the largest mobile handset manufacturer in the world, from importing its handsets into the United States.
Obtained a 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 case against a major insurance company.
Obtained a defense jury verdict of patent invalidity and non-infringement for a major Internet digital media delivery company in a five-week trial in which plaintiff sought in excess of $200 million in damages.
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.
Obtained a 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 involving word disambiguation software technology.
Obtained a defense judgment for a defendant assisted living company in a trial in which the plaintiff claimed $750 million in damages due to corporate self dealing during a merger transaction.
Obtained a 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.
Obtained a defense judgment for a defendant 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.
Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement on behalf of over 30 cellular telephone manufacturer defendants in a Texas patent case in which a University plaintiff sought in excess of $1.5 billion in damages, which was confirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Obtained a ruling on summary judgment for a plaintiff's packaging company that defendant had infringed two of plaintiff's patents, resulting in a settlement in excess of $23 million.
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.
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.