Morgan Chu

Chu, who graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, is a former president and chair of the Harvard University Board of Overseers. He also attended Yale and UCLA. He joined Irell & Manella LLP as an associate in 1977 and became a partner in 1982. He is currently the chair of Irell’s litigation practice group.

The $2.2 billion jury verdict he obtained in March 2021 as co-leader of a team representing VLSI Technology LLC in a patent suit against Intel Corp. is the second-largest infringement judgment in U.S. history. Post-trial motions are pending, Chu said. VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corp., 6:21-cv-00057 (W.D. Tex., filed April 11, 2019).

Patent warfare between VLSI and Intel is ongoing, with Chu at the forefront of VLSI’s attack over infringement claims against the world’s largest semiconductor chipmaker. Chu is set to again lead an Irell team in April 2022 in Texas in another infringement case. VLSI Technology LLC v. Intel Corp., 6:19-cv-00256 (W.D. Tex., filed April 11, 2019).

Two additional similar cases, alleging that Intel infringed VLSI’s patents, are scheduled in Delaware and the Northern District of California.

“Life is interesting,” Chu commented, pointing out that Intel unsuccessfully fought back with an antitrust suit against VLSI’s parent, Fortress Investment Group LLC. The complaint alleged that Fortress engaged in an anti-competitive patent aggregation scheme. Irell’s defense win for Fortress was one of The Daily Journal’s top verdicts of 2021. Intel Corp. et al. v. Fortress Investment Group et al., 19-cv-07651 (N.D. Cal., filed Nov. 20, 2019).

Intel claimed Fortress invested in large patent portfolios of weak overbroad patents with the goal of charging excessive licensing fees and suing technology companies. U.S. District Judge Edward M. Chen dismissed the case with prejudice—after giving Intel two chances to amend its complaint—in September 2021.

“Intel took a blunderbuss approach with its antitrust claims,” said Chu. “The case had no direct impact on our infringement litigation, but I suspect they thought their antitrust case might force VLSI to settle the patent cases.”

Chu wins for clients, but some victories have also aided the community of small inventors. The positive fallout continues from Chu’s 9-0 U.S. Supreme Court ruling, striking down a U.S. Patent and Trademark Office policy that applicants who appeal to a district court must foot the USPTO’s legal bills, no matter who wins. Peter v. NantKwest Inc., 18-801 (SCOTUS, op. filed Dec. 11, 2019).

“The case was incredibly interesting for a lot of reasons,” Chu said. “Before, parties were hesitant to challenge adverse decisions lest they have to pay the PTO’s fees, win or lose. I’ve been hearing from individual inventors at small innovative companies who now have a route to appeal. I did get some thank-yous from people I don’t know. It’s another reason why I love what I do every day.”

– John Roemer