Morgan Chu

For San Jose-based touch feedback technology leader Immersion Corp., Chu filed a multi-patent action against Apple Inc. at the U.S. International Trade Commission and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The company’s Immersion’s complaint to the ITC alleged that touch screens on Apple’s iPhones, MacBooks and Apple Watches infringed seven tactile feedback technology patents.

The ITC instituted an investigation and the case went to trial in May 2017. Chu also battled Apple at the PTAB, where Apple filed two petitions challenging each of the seven patents.

The Immersion patents allegedly powered Apple’s 3D Touch and the Taptic Engine. Several allow touch-screen devices to vibrate in response when users press a button.

In February, Chu secured a confidential global settlement for his client that included a licensing agreement with Apple. Though terms of the deal were not disclosed, Immersion’s stock jumped to nearly an 11-month high on the news. In the Matter of Certain Mobile and Portable Electronic Devices Incorporating Haptics (Including Smartphones and Laptops) and Components Thereof, 337-TA-1004 (ITC, filed Feb. 11, 2016).

Chu also obtained a settlement for client Future Link Systems LLC in August in a battle that began in 2014 when Intel Corp. sued seeking a declaratory judgment that neither it nor its customers infringed nine of Future Link’s patents. Chu counterclaimed for infringement of seven of the patents Intel put at issue, and he also asserted infringement of eight other Future Link patents.

“That case settled at an important time, when despite Intel’s best efforts to kill some of the patents asserted against it, it was unable to do so,” Chu said. In total, every one of Intel’s high-volume processors sold within the last eight years was accused of infringing multiple patents. Chu won favorable claim construction rulings, defeated two rounds of summary judgment motions and convinced a Delaware federal judge to reject every one of Intel’s Daubert motions.

With trial set for the following month, Intel agreed to a confidential settlement. Intel Corp. v. Future Link Systems LLC, 14-CV00377 (D. Del., filed March 24, 2014).

“We focused on key issues for each of the key patents. Instead of taking a blunderbuss approach, we were judicious,” Chu said. “Yes, the case was hard-fought. I can’t remember when I’ve had a case that wasn’t. Clients engage us for that.”

— John Roemer