Source: http://dinovoprice.com/professionals/christopher-v-goodpastor/
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 03:58:32+00:00

Document:
Mr. Goodpastor handles a variety of disputes in trial and appellate courts with an emphasis on intellectual property and antitrust litigation. He has represented clients in various industries, including computer software and hardware, integrated circuit fabrication, internet and web services, securities and financial services, oil and gas production, telecommunications, health care, and medical devices.
Mr. Goodpastor serves as lead counsel in numerous complex, high-stakes, intellectual property matters, including representing a patent holder as plaintiff in patent litigation against numerous smartphone manufacturers; representing a communications hardware company as plaintiff in patent litigation against several integrated circuit manufacturers; and representing a communications hardware and software company as plaintiff in patent litigation against numerous camera phone manufacturers.
Mr. Goodpastor also has represented businesses and consumers as plaintiffs in direct and class action antitrust matters relating to a wide variety of anticompetitive behavior, including price fixing, bid rigging, concerted refusals to deal, customer allocation, monopolization, manipulation of standard setting organizations, and other anticompetitive restraints under the Sherman and Clayton Acts.
Mr. Goodpastor formerly served as Chief Counsel for a publicly traded telecommunications company.
Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG. v. Apple Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Texas): Serve as lead counsel for plaintiff in patent litigation relating to data transfer technology against numerous manufacturers of smartphones. Obtained jury verdict against one defendant; other defendants settled favorably for confidential sums.
Bandspeed, Inc. v. Broadcom, Inc., et al. (Western District of Texas): Served as lead counsel for a plaintiff hardware company in a patent litigation relating to Bluetooth communications against numerous integrated circuit manufacturers. The matter settled favorably for confidential sums.
Bandspeed, Inc. v. Sony Electronics, Inc., et al. (Western District of Texas): Served as lead counsel for a plaintiff hardware company in a patent and antitrust litigation relating to Bluetooth communications against 45 hardware manufacturers and a standards setting organization. The matter settled favorably for confidential sums.
eWatch, Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Texas): Served as lead counsel for a plaintiff hardware and software company in patent litigation relating to image capture, storage, and transmission against numerous manufacturers of camera phones. The matter settled favorably for confidential sums.
Encore Media Metrics LLC v. Google Inc., et al. (261st Judicial District, Travis County, Texas): Served as lead counsel for plaintiff web analytics provider in trade secret litigation relating to internet advertising analytics against a large competitor. The matter settled favorably for a confidential sum.
In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation (Eastern District of New York): Serve as counsel for plaintiff in proposed class action on behalf of dental practices and laboratories against the three largest dental supply and equipment distributors in the United States, alleging the distributors fixed price margins, pressured manufacturers to boycott competitors, and agreed not to poach each other’s employees.
In re German Automotive Manufacturers Antitrust Litigation (Northern District of California): Serve as counsel for plaintiffs in proposed class action on behalf of vehicle purchasers against Audi, BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Porsche, Volkswagen and related entities, alleging that these German vehicle manufacturers coordinated on costs, prices, suppliers, technical development, and other competitive aspects in violation of both federal and state antitrust laws and consumer protection statutes.
Silicon Services Consortium, Inc. et al. v. Applied Materials, Inc. (Western District of Texas): Represented providers of refurbished microchip manufacturing tools as plaintiffs in antitrust litigation against a large tool manufacturer. The matter settled favorably for a confidential sum.
Z-Tel Communications, Inc. v. SBC Communications, Inc., et al. (Eastern District of Texas): Represented a competitive telephone provider as plaintiff in antitrust litigation against a large Regional Bell Operating Company. The matter settled favorably for a confidential sum.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.