Morgan Chu

Chu has served as lead trial counsel in some of the largest—and in some cases, precedent-setting—verdicts, judgments and settlements. Together, they have resulted in actual payments exceeding $9 billion.

Along with the courtroom challenges, some wins come amid physical hardship.

In Waco, Texas, in February, Chu persuaded a federal jury to award $2.18 billion to his client, VLSI Technology LLC, in a clash with Intel Corp. over two patents related to microprosessors. VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corp., 21-CV00057 (W.D. Tx., filed April 11, 2019). Intel has vowed to appeal.

The trial, which reached a verdict March 2, was delayed a week by the severe winter storm that iced much of the state.

“It was fun, as all trials are for me,” Chu said, “but we lost power and internet contact intermittently and the hotel lost water. It was impossible to get food.”

“We sent people out to forage and they came back with hot dog buns,” he added. “We were inconvenienced, but we didn’t suffer the way many did.”

Even without the storm there was the COVID-19 virus. Intel sought to delay the trial due to the pandemic, but U.S. District Judge Alan D. Albright, himself a former patent litigator, rejected that move.

Chu said his Irell & Manella team, comprising nine lawyers and two dozen support people and witnesses, was ready.

“We had testing daily for the team and our witnesses,” he said. “We had masks and shields and all necessary precautions.”

Of the trial, Chu said: “Our witnesses did very well in proving a credible, solid, fact-based case for the jury. That sounds elementary, but that’s the basics of any trial.

“I want to mention that there were superb counsel on the other side with a strong presentation also,” he added. The seven-member jury was unanimous.

Chu’s not done with the matter. Four further trials are pending in Texas, California and Delaware targeting similar alleged Intel infringements regarding significant breakthroughs in microprocessor architecture.

In April 2020, Chu obtained a $1.2 billion judgment for Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research and Juno Therapeutics Inc. in an infringement suit against Kite Pharma Inc.

Earlier, in December 2019, he convinced jurors to rule 9-0 to award his clients $752 million; the augmented judgment resulted from the finding that Kite willfully infringed a cancer treatment known as CAR-T cell therapy.

The patent at issue covered the first “living drug.” Juno Therapeutics Inc. v. Kite Pharma Inc., 17-CV07639 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 18, 2017).

Two days before the Sloan Kettering verdict, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled for Chu’s client NantKwest Inc. by striking down the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s policy that applicants who appeal to a district court must foot the USPTO’s legal bills. Chu argued the case and obtained a 9-0 win. Peter v NantKwest Inc., 18-801 (S. Ct., filed Dec. 11, 2019).

“It was a great year if you just focus on the outcomes,” Chu said. “Overall, what with Covid, it was not so wonderful.”

— John Roemer