Megan Chung heads the Patent Litigation Team in the San Diego office. Ms. Chung focuses her practice on complex and technical intellectual property litigation. She has extensive experience representing companies and executives on intellectual property and technology-related matters, focusing on patent, copyright, trade secret and trademark litigation and post-grant proceedings.
Ms. Chung has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in federal courts throughout the United States, including the U.S. International Trade Commission. During her career as a trial attorney, she has served as counsel in numerous successful efforts, obtaining critical claim construction rulings resulting in favorable settlements and summary judgments. She has evaluated intellectual property and litigated claims addressing technology ranging from application and system software, augmented reality, biotechnology, computer products and accessories, fishing lures, Internet, medical device products, semiconductor processing, sensors, telecommunications, and videogame. She has also drafted appellate briefs, including amicus briefs to the U.S. Supreme Court.
In addition to litigating intellectual property and other complex disputes, Ms. Chung regularly advises clients in developing their intellectual property, analyzing products to determine any infringement, conducting due diligence on intellectual property matters for licensing or acquisitions, analyzing competition for freedom to operate, reviewing and training for intellectual property issues in advertisements and other publications in print or media, and establishing strategies to best exploit the use of intellectual property.
Ms. Chung is also committed to public interest work, especially those involving children in the juvenile courts and sexually exploited children and women. She has successfully won asylum hearings for persecuted women based on their religious and/or political beliefs. She has served on the firm’s Pro Bono Committee.
Ms. Chung was recognized as a San Diego “Super Lawyer” in 2017 and 2018 for Intellectual Property Litigation by Super Lawyers magazine
Represented Baxter International Inc. and Baxter Healthcare Corp., a leading global medical products and services company, in a patent infringement action involving intravenous immunoglobulins. Case settled on eve of trial. (Judge Sleet). Talecris Biotherapeutics, Inc. v. Baxter Int'l Inc., No. 1:05-cv-00349-GMS (D. Del. filed June 1, 2005).
Represented Oracle Corporation (Oracle) against claims of copyright infringement of its technology to build user interfaces. The case involved Oracle Fusion products, a suite of products offering integration services, business intelligence, collaboration, and content management. At the center of the dispute were the terms of the licensing agreement between MB Technologies and Oracle, and the specific rights granted to Oracle according to that contract. Matter settled. MB Tech., Inc. v. Oracle Corp. et al., No. 09-5988 (N.D. Cal. filed Dec. 22, 2009).
Represented Z-Line Designs, a major ready-to-assemble furniture manufacturer and distributor, in a design patent and trade dress infringement litigation in the Northern District of California. Case settled favorably for the client. Z-Line Designs, Inc. v. Sauder Woodworking Co., No. 10-cv-1735, (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 22, 2010).
Obtained a favorable settlement for Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC (SCEA), an electronic gaming products company, in this case before the U.S. District Court, Southern California. NTN distributed a video trivia game called “Buzztime,” while Sony Computer Entertainment Europe (SCEE) created and SCEA distributed a video trivia game for PlayStation called “Buzz! Quiz World.” We obtained a settlement that enabled SCEE and SCEA to continue to market and distribute their video game worldwide. Buzztime Entm't Inc. v. Sony Computer Entm't Europe Ltd., No. 08-0122 (S.D. Cal. filed Jan. 23, 2008).
Represented Epson America Inc. as defendant in a patent infringement case related to the reduction of blocking artifacts in video displays. Succeeded in transferring case from the Eastern District of Texas to the Central District of California. The case settled soon after the transfer. Video Enhancement Solutions, LLC. v. Denon Electronics (USA), LLC. et al., 2:10-cv-04370 (C.D. Cal. filed June 14, 2010).
Represented defendants Amazon.com, A9.com, and Alexa Internet against claims that search engine capabilities rendered them liable for copyright infringement. Perfect 10 Inc. v. Amazon.com Inc. et al., No. 2:05-cv-04753 (C.D. Cal. filed June 29, 2005).
Representing Oracle in a matter filed in the Eastern District of Virginia. Summary judgment of non-infringement was entered in favor of defendants. The matter is now on appeal to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. TecSec, Inc. v. IBM Corp., et al., No. 1:10-cv-115 (E.D. Va., filed Feb. 5, 2010).
Achieved judgment for Williams-Sonoma, Inc. against unauthorized use of client’s trademarks in connection with adult websites. Williams-Sonoma, Inc. v. Friendfinder, Inc. et al., No. 06-6572 (N.D. Cal. filed Oct. 20, 2006).
Represented Huddleston, a custom fish lure manufacturer, in a patent infringement action related to mechanical device-related patents. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed with prejudice after we successfully won claim construction. Wedgetail Ltd. et al. v. Huddleston Deluxe Inc., No. 07-202 (E.D. Tex. Dismissed Aug. 15, 2008).
Represented Hitachi Global Storage Technologies, Ltd. in a patent infringement action on a patent related to a two-dimensional bar code identification system and method filed against it by VCode Holdings Inc., an Acacia subsidiary. The case settled after a successful motion to dismiss the non-US HGST affiliates. VCode Holdings Inc. et al. v. adidas America Inc. et al., No. 0:04-cv-04583 (D. Minn. filed October 25, 2004).
Obtained summary judgment and a permanent injunction against a computer company utilizing Apple’s copyrighted operating system software on non-Apple hardware based upon copyright infringement and violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. The ruling resulted in a published opinion which affirmed liability for distributing copies of operating software and circumvention technology. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the permanent injunction and inapplicability of copyright misuse. Apple Computer Inc. v. Psystar Corporation, 673 F.Supp.2d 943 (N.D. Cal. 2009), 673 F.Supp.2d 931 (N.D. Cal. 2009), 586 F.Supp. 2d 1190 (N.D. Cal. 2008), aff’d in relevant part, 658 F.3d 1150 (9th Cir. 2011) (affirmed on infringement, remand regarding sealing of certain information), cert. denied 132 S. Ct. 2374 (May 14, 2012).
Representing Leatt Corporation in the Central District of California. Atlas Brace Technologies filed an action in the Central District of California for declaratory judgment against Leatt to determine infringement of Leatt’s two patents directed to protective neck braces, which prevent injury to athletes performing in various sports, including motocross. Leatt filed counterclaims for infringement of the two patents against Atlas Brace’s protective neck brace, the Atlas Neck Brace, which is also used by motocross and other athletes. Atlas Brace Technologies USA LLC v. Leatt Corp., et al. No. 11-09973 (C.D. Cal. filed Dec. 1, 2011).
Defended Edwards Lifesciences in a four patent case Medtronics brought involving Edwards’ flagship prosthetic surgical heart valves. Furthermore, Kilpatrick Townsend led the countersuit asserting Edwards patents infringed by Medtronics’ valve reconstruction products. The team successfully challenged the validity of three of the four Medtronic patents-in-suit and two other threatened patents in proceedings before the U.S. Patent and Trademark office, winning cancellations of virtually all pertinent claims. The case settled as part of a global settlement of multiple cases with an exchange of cross-licenses and license payments by Medtronic of over $1 billion. Medtronic, Inc. et al. v. Edwards Lifesciences Corp, et al., No. 11-cv-01650 (D. Minn. filed June 24, 2011).
Currently representing GoPro in lawsuit filed in the Northern District of California against 360Heros asserting claims of copyright and trademark infringement and seeking declaratory judgment rulings of non-infringement and invalidity of 360Heros’ patent. Successfully obtained summary judgment of copyright infringement against 360Heros and ruling that 360Heros lacked standing to assert its patent against GoPro at time litigation was instituted. GoPro, Inc. v. 360Heros, Inc., No. 3:16-cv-01944 (N.D. Cal. filed Apr. 13, 2016).
Currently defending GoPro in patent infringement lawsuit in the District of Delaware filed by 360Heros on mechanical rigs designed to hold cameras in place to film 360 degree footage. 360Heros v. GoPro, Inc., No. 1:17-cv-01302 (D. Del. filed Sept. 13, 2017).
Represented GoPro in lawsuit filed in the Southern District of New York that sought declaratory relief of no trademark or patent infringement and successfully obtained dismissal of the suit. Sound Around Inc. v. GoPro, Inc., No. 1:08-cv-00313 (S.D.N.Y. filed Dec. 30, 2016).
Insights View All
University of California, Davis School of Law, J.D. (2003) Journal of Juvenile Law and Policy, Managing Editor
Stanford University, M.A., Education (1996)
Stanford University, B.A., Human Biology (1995)
California Supreme Court
U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California - William Alsup
American Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law and Science & Technology Law Member
American Intellectual Property Law Association, Member
Asian American Bar Association, Judiciary Committee Member
California Minority Counsel Program, Member
Federal Bar Association, San Diego, Executive Committee Member
Pan Asian Lawyers of San Diego, Member
San Diego Intellectual Property Law Association, Member
State Bar of California, IP Section, Member
Women in Bio, Southern California, Member
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.