Christopher Ponder



Chris Ponder is a Special Counsel in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the firm's Silicon Valley office.

Areas of Practice

Chris' practice focuses on complex patent and business litigation that often involves competitors. His litigation experience includes conducting and managing fact and expert discovery, and developing claims and defenses. Chris has extensive experience in motion advocacy, and routinely argues motions in federal court. He has taken depositions of high-level corporate executives (including a chief operating officer, a chief technology officer, and a general counsel), as well as expert witnesses. He has worked on several inter partes review proceedings related to active district court litigation.

Chris has taken part in jury trials involving patent infringement and other commercial claims. Intellectual property counseling matters have included assisting clients with negotiating and evaluating patent licenses, and evaluating software license agreements, and responding to trademark and copyright infringement issues.


•Northern California Rising Star, Super Lawyers, 2015-2018


•Represented leading game developer in an inter partes review proceeding where the PTAB found all challenged claims unpatentable following an unsuccessful IPR challenge by a different game developer
•Represented leading wearable device company in an inter partes review proceeding where the Patent Owner (a Wi-LAN subsidiary) disclaimed the challenged claims after institution
GENBAND US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) - Represented GENBAND in competitor litigation involving trade secret misappropriation and unfair competition counterclaims
Elbit Systems Land and C4I Ltd. v. Hughes Network Systems, LLC (E.D. Tex.) -Represented defendants against claims of patent infringement involving satellite communications technologies brought by a major military contractor
GENBAND US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd. (E.D. Tex.) - Represented GENBAND in patent infringement countersuit brought by a competitor involving telecommunications technologies
GENBAND US LLC v. Metaswitch Networks Ltd. (E.D.Tex) - Represented GENBAND in patent infringement action against a competitor involving VoIP, media gateway, and session border controller technologies
Ultratec, Inc. v. Sorenson Communications, Inc. (W.D. Wis.) - Represented CaptionCall LLC in competitor litigation involving captioned telephone technology; developed petitioner’s response to plaintiff's secondary considerations evidence in eight co-pending inter partes reviews
TracBeam LLC v. AT&T Mobility LLC (E.D. Tex.) - Defended AT&T against claims that its services infringe a patent directed to location-based services
Convolve, Inc. v. Dell,Inc. (E.D. Tex.) - Defended Dell Inc. against claims that certain hard drives shipped with its computer systems infringe a patent directed to switchable hard drive acoustic properties
MedioStream Inc. v. Microsoft Corp. (E.D. Tex.) - Defended Dell Inc. against claims that its computer systems allegedly infringe a patent that covers transcoding video into a format for optical discs
Data Network Storage Corp. v. Hewlett Packard Co., (N.D. Tex.) - Represented Dell Inc. in a patent infringement action involving enterprise iSCSI storage systems
LG Electronics, Inc. v. Whirlpool Corp. (D. Del.) - Represented Whirlpool in a patent infringement action involving refrigerator storage and ice and water dispensing systems
•Assisted client with contracting for independent software support services that comply with their enterprise software licenses
•Provided an opinion to a client analyzing their ownership rights in software works they derived from licensed software
•Assisted client with providing intellectual property disclosures in their shelf offering registration
•Apprised a client of their rights in software code developed for them by a third party contractor


•Law Clerk to the Honorable Roy S. Payne of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.


•Part 2: How to Assert and Defend Trade Secret Claims After ‘Waymo v. Uber’
The Recorder , February 20, 2018
•Lessons Learned From ‘Waymo v. Uber’ and Other Trade Secret Disputes, Part One: How to Properly Protect Your Trade Secrets
The Recorder , February 13, 2018

Media Mentions

•Apple, Fitbit Get Heart Sensor Patent Slashed At PTAB
Law360 , August 7, 2018

Areas of Practice (8)

  • Intellectual Property
  • False Advertising, Lanham Act and Unfair Competition
  • Patent Litigation
  • Post-Grant Proceedings
  • Trade Secrets
  • Entertainment and Digital Media
  • Life Sciences and FDA
  • Social Media and Games

Education & Credentials

Contact Information:
650.815.2676  Phone
650.815.4664  Fax
University Attended:
University of Houston, B.S., Computer Science, cum laude, 2004
Law School Attended:
University of Houston, J.D., magna cum laude, 2008; Articles Editor, Houston Law Review, Order of the Coif; Member of the Honors College
Year of First Admission:
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of Texas; California; Texas; United States Patent and Trademark Office; United States District Court for the Northern District of California


•American Bar Association - Section of Intellectual Property Law


Peer Reviews

This lawyer does not have peer reviews.

*Peer Reviews provided before April 15, 2008 are not displayed.

Palo Alto, California

Contact Christopher Ponder

Required Fields

Required Fields

By clicking on the "Submit" button, you agree to the Terms of Use, Supplemental Terms and Privacy Policy. You also consent to be contacted at the phone number you provided, including by autodials, text messages and/or pre-recorded calls, from Martindale and its affiliates and from or on behalf of attorneys you request or contact through this site. Consent is not a condition of purchase.

You should not send any sensitive or confidential information through this site. Emails sent through this site do not create an attorney-client relationship and may not be treated as privileged or confidential. The lawyer or law firm you are contacting is not required to, and may choose not to, accept you as a client. The Internet is not necessarily secure and emails sent though this site could be intercepted or read by third parties.