Greg Gilchrist has successfully represented a wide range of clients in litigation, trials and appeals before state and federal courts. Although his practice currently emphasizes intellectual property and antitrust litigation, his clients consult him on a wide variety of problems. He has handled employment litigation arising out of large scale lay-offs and dealer termination cases arising out of distribution policy enforcement. He manages national and global brand enforcement projects for famous consumer products.
Apart from litigation, Mr. Gilchrist regularly advises clients on brand protection and product distribution strategies and a wide variety of commercial disputes. He works closely with clients to design processes and programs that lawfully implement their commercial objectives. His extensive experience in pre-litigation counseling includes serving on a number of client policy committees and training teams.
Mr. Gilchrist is recognized as a Northern California "Super Lawyer" in the area of Intellectual Property by Super Lawyers magazine. He is listed in Best Lawyers in America® for Commercial Litigation. Mr. Gilchrist is listed in the World Trademark Review 1000 – The World's Leading Trademark Professionals. He is AV® Preeminent rated by Martindale-Hubbell.*
*CV, BV, and AV are registered certification marks of Reed Elsevier Properties Inc., used in accordance with the Martindale-Hubbell certification procedure's standards and policies.Representative Recent and Pending Engagements
Levi Strauss & Co. Representing company in commercial litigation, arbitration and global trademark enforcement program. Counseling about distribution policies, license disputes, internet policies, trademark and copyright policies and education for sales and marketing forces.
Williams-Sonoma, Inc. Representing company in trademark, trade dress and copyright litigation and in brand and copyright enforcement efforts. Providing counsel about brand and copyright protection strategies; protection of IP assets on-line, and vendor strategies.
Go. v. Microsoft. Representing company who pioneered tablet technology in antitrust litigation involving alleged conspiracy to monopolize operating system market
Tequila Supremo S.A. v. Gallo, Inc. Representing tequila producer in ICC arbitration involving disputes under tequila supply and distribution agreement.
Medtronic Inc. v. Edwards Life Sciences, Inc. Representing defendant and cross-claimant in patent infringement lawsuit involving patented heart valve repair and replacement technology
Spiece v. Levi Strauss & Co. Represented client in lawsuit involving terminated distributor asserting counterclaims for antitrust violations, deceptive franchise practices and dealer termination claims.
Commonwealth Scientific & Industrial Research Organisation v. Intel, Microsoft, Dell, H-P et al. Represented Australian governmental research organization in patent infringement trial regarding patents for wireless LAN technology.
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch. Represented Levi Strauss in trial against competitor regarding allegedly infringing stitching design.
All Alaskan Seafoods v. Raychem Corporation. Represented Tyco Electronics Corp. [successor of Raychem] in trial of product liability action involving claims in excess of $150 million arising from fire aboard salmon and crab processing vessel.
Fisherman's Wharf Bay Cruise Corporation v. Blue & Gold Fleet. Represented client in arbitration regarding settlement reached during pre-trial of predatory pricing, tying, price and services discrimination claims.
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Vivat Holdings. Represented client in TTAB trial proceedings regarding trademark applications of rival jeans manufacturer.
Levi Strauss & Co. v. Abercrombie & Fitch. Represented client in appeals regarding claim preclusion (Federal Circuit) and proper standard for dilution under Trademark Dilution Revision Act (Ninth Circuit).
Informatica Corp. v. Bus. Objects Data Integration, Inc. Represented client in appeal regarding validity and infringement of software patent.
Unit Process Co. v. Tyco Flow Control. Represented manufacturer in state and federal appeals regarding exclusive dealing, tying, monopoly, trade libel and franchise law claims.
Fisherman's Wharf Bay Cruise Corporation v. Blue & Gold Fleet. Represented client in appeal regarding dismissal of predatory pricing claims.
Already L.L.C. v. Nike Inc. Represented amici supporting Nike in U.S. Supreme Court.
Saratoga Fishing v. J.M. Martinac. Represented amicus curiae in U.S. Supreme Court.
Insights View All
University of Michigan Law School, J.D. (1983) magna cum laude, Order of the Coif, Michigan Law Review
University of Michigan, B.A., Political Science and Economics (1980) cum laude
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California
Adjunct Professor USF Law School - Antitrust and Intellectual Property
American Bar Association, Antitrust Section, Member
California Bar Association, Member
San Francisco Bar Association, Member
Frank McCoppin Elementary Parent-Teacher Association (PTA), Past President
Youth Baseball, Coach and Volunteer
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.