Morgan Chu

Chu is chair of Irell's litigation group and has been a partner since 1982. He has been lead trial counsel in cases resulting in actual payments to clients of more than $5 billion. Last year, he obtained for client Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation a $234.2 million jury award against Apple Inc. in a patent dispute over a key computer architecture design, invented at the University of Wisconsin, that lets processors run faster on less energy. The case is currently before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc., 3:14-cv-00062 (W.D. Wis., filed Jan. 31, 2014).

While that case was still before the trial court, Chu filed a second case on identical claims. "Apple introduced more products after the discovery cut-off date in our first case," Chu said. "We had so much fun the first time around, we thought we'd do it again." Wisconsin Alumni Research Foundation v. Apple Inc., 3:15-cv-00621 (W.D. Wis., filed Sept. 25, 2015).

He newly represents Guardant Health Inc., a Redwood City maker of a noninvasive genomic sequencing blood test for cancer, in defense of its patent against infringement claims by Foundation Medicine Inc. "The test can diagnose 70 different types of cancer via a blood draw instead of a painful needle biopsy," Chu said. Foundation Medicine Inc. v. Guardant Health Inc., 2:16-cv-00523 (E.D. Texas, filed May 17, 2016). "There is nothing better than to represent someone helping humanity."

Chu gets up early and runs every day before work, he said, and lately he wears Skechers USA Inc. athletic shoes. Hardly surprising given that he delivered the brand, a client, a major trademark victory stating Skechers' Twinkle Toes and Bobs product lines do not infringe rival Converse Inc.'s registered trademark for its Chuck Taylor design. In June, the International Trade Commission affirmed an ITC judge's rulings against Converse and also invalidated Converse's Chuck Taylor trademark. Skechers sneakers did not infringe even if the trademark had been valid, the panel ruled. In the Matter of: Certain Footwear Products, 337-TA-936 (U.S. Int'l Trade Comm., filed Oct. 14, 2014).

"Converse said they want to own the rubberized toe cap and toe bumper and a rubber strip on the side of the shoe," Chu said. "We looked at it and said, 'No way.'"

Nike Inc. subsidiary Converse's original suit for trade dress infringement named 31 defendants; most settled, leaving only Skechers, Wal-Mart Stores Inc., New Balance Athletics Inc. and an Italian fashion shoemaker in the case. "Twinkle Toes are for little girls. The toes light up, they're really cute," Chu said. "But would anyone seriously buy Twinkle Toes thinking they were Chuck Taylor All Stars?" If Converse had prevailed, the Skechers shoes at issue would have been excluded from the U.S. market. "That would have been a blow," Chu said. "Skechers have outstanding quality. Nikes seem incredibly expensive. Now, I'm not only the lawyer, I help sell the shoes."

— John Roemer