Source: https://www.fr.com/craig-countryman/
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 18:22:15+00:00

Document:
Craig Countryman is a Principal in the Southern California office of Fish & Richardson and the Co-Chair of Fish’s Appellate Practice. Craig has been named a Law360 MVP for Appellate work, a Rising Star by Law360, and he has been selected for the “Top 40 Under 40” lists in the Daily Journal, San Diego Daily Transcript, and San Diego Metro Magazine. His practice centers on complex legal analysis and writing, particularly case-dispositive summary judgment, JMOL, and Federal Circuit briefs. He also has extensive case-management experience in patent cases involving a range of technologies, including glaucoma drugs, polymer processing additives, spinal implants, coronary guidewires, power supply controller chips, network security, and computer backup software. Craig has led the briefing in over 50 Federal Circuit and Supreme Court appeals, including the Halo Electronics case, where Craig and his colleagues convinced the Supreme Court to revise the standard for enhanced damages in patent cases. He has extensive experience in taking over cases after trial, selecting the best legal issues for appeal, and framing them in a persuasive manner. Craig writes frequently on a variety of patent law topics and has published over 25 articles and dozens of posts for Fish’s litigation blog. Before joining Fish, Craig was a chemist and developed a novel synthesis of the anti-inflammatory drug ketorolac using a stereoselective, organocatalytic cycloaddition reaction as the main step.
San Diego Metro Magazine “40 Under 40” (2017).
Daily Journal Top 40 Under 40 (2016).
San Diego Transcript Top 40 Under 40 (2016).
Super Lawyers Magazine Rising Star (2015, 2016, 2019).
“Fed. Circ. Is Tightening Appellate Standing For IPR Cases,” Law360 (November 26, 2018).
“Secret Sales and Prior Art,” Daily Journal (October 8, 2018).
“Will the Court Upend the Dual Sovereign Doctrine?” Daily Journal (September 26, 2018).
“Fed. Circ. Redefines ‘Real Party In Interest’ In USPTO Reviews,” Law360 (September 7, 2018).
“Lessons from Fed. Circ.’s 1st Wave of Post-Grant Appeals,” Law360 (December 16, 2015).
“How Patent Reform Could Affect Claim Construction in IPR,” IP Law 360 (May 20, 2015) with Michael Rosen.
“It’s not always obvious what’s ‘obvious,'” Daily Journal (August 27, 2014), with Juanita Brooks.
“Federal Circuit confines the infringement analysis in generic drug cases to the product as described in the defendant’s FDA application,” Fish Litigation Blog (November 4, 2013).
Quoted, “From NJ To Texas: How The Courts Fared At The Fed. Circ.,” Law 360, (February 21, 2018).
Quoted, “Fed. Circ. Criticism Trains Spotlight On PTAB Procedures,” Law360, (August 24, 2017).
Quoted, “AIA Constitutionality Case Could Create Patent Law Chaos,” Law360, (June 13, 2017).
Enhanced Damages in Patent Cases after Halo v. Pulse, presenter, Fish Litigation Webinar (June 23, 2016).
Halo Electronics Inc. v. Pulse Electronics, Inc.. – Counsel for Halo Electronics, a family-run business, in a long-running patent case related to packaging for surface mount magnetic components used in electronics products. In November 2012, a jury found defendant Pulse Electronics liable for willful infringement on three Halo patents, confirmed the patents’ validity, and awarded past damages. At that time, five other competitors had licensed the Halo patent portfolio. The Federal Circuit since affirmed the jury verdict of liability but set aside the willful finding, reported at 769 F.3d 1371 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Halo subsequently convinced the Supreme Court to vacate the Federal Circuit’s treatment of willfulness and set a new standard for enhanced damages in patent cases, reported at 136 S. Ct. 1923 (2016).
Storer v. Clark – Counsel for Gilead Sciences, Inc. in a Federal Circuit appeal from an interference that awarded priority to Gilead for patents and applications claiming use of 2’-methyl, 2’-fluoro nucleosides to treat Hepatitis C virus. Obtained an affirmance of the PTO’s judgment in a precedential opinion, reported at 860 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2017).
Collaborative Agreements, LLC v. Adobe Systems Inc. – Counsel for Adobe in a Federal Circuit appeal involving electronic systems for negotiating and signing contracts. Briefed and argued the appeal and obtained a summary affirmance under Rule 36 that the patent was invalid as a matter of law.
Home Semiconductor Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co. – Counsel for Samsung in a Federal Circuit appeal from a favorable inter partes review decision in which the PTO invalidated a patent related to a manufacturing technique for semiconductor chips. Obtained summary affirmance of the PTO’s decision under Federal Circuit Rule 36.
Power Integrations, Inc. v. Fairchild Semiconductor Int’l, Inc. – Appellate counsel for Power Integrations in a case involving patents of both parties to various circuitry used in controller chips for electrical chargers. Obtained reversal of a jury’s infringement finding against Power Integrations and secured a JMOL of non-infringement. Also obtained a decision sustaining the validity of two key Power Integrations patents and a determination that PI’s evidence was sufficient to sustain a jury verdict of inducement against Fairchild. Opinion reported at 843 F.3d 1315 (Fed. Cir. 2016).
Williamson v. Citrix Online, LLC – Appellate counsel for Citrix and Microsoft. Obtained summary affirmance of a district court’s decision invalidating a patent to a distributed system for online education under 35 U.S.C. § 101, as it preempted long-standing abstract principles for teaching.
Alford, et. al. vs. County of San Diego (CA state court)– Represented a plaintiff class of indigent residents of San Diego being denied subsistence health care in violation of Welfare and Institutions Code Section 17000. The class was victorious in the California Court of Appeal, see 151 Cal. App. 4th 16 (2007). The class also prevailed in several challenges on remand to the County’s incoming eligibility limits for the program and its procedures for reviewing applications.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 101