Two Embarcadero Center Suite 1900, San Francisco, CA USA 94111
Christine Morgan is a first chair intellectual property and complex commercial trial lawyer with repeated successes for companies accused of infringing computer hardware and software patents. She has achieved cost-effective wins for clients in several industries, including video game publishing, fintech, ride sharing, consumer hardware and electronics, Wi-Fi semiconductors, mobile printers, health care software and hardware, wireless security cameras, Bluetooth-enabled tracking devices, cloud content management, and electronic loyalty programs.
Where cases cannot be resolved short of trial, Christine tries them. She has tried patent cases in the country’s most active patent litigation venues, including the Eastern District of Texas, the Northern District of California, the Eastern District of Virginia, the International Trade Commission, and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, serving as first chair in two of these trials.
Christine also specializes in the Section 101 patent defense. She has eliminated tens of millions of dollars in potential damages exposure faced by her clients by invalidating patents under Section 101, often at the pleading stage. Christine’s Section 101 motion to dismiss wins include invalidating a patent that had survived IPR and that focused on verifying the identity of a user in more than one way over multiple communications mediums. She also invalidated two patents focused on wirelessly outputting data from one device to another that had been asserted in over two dozen cases around the country. The Federal Circuit affirmed another of Christine’s Section 101 wins where she invalidated claims related to collecting data from bedside machines, converting it, and presenting it on a graphical user interface. More recently, Christine invalidated two patents relating to hospital bed graphical user interfaces.
While her practice focuses on patent litigation, Christine also routinely handles trade secrets, unfair competition, trademark, copyright, and complex commercial disputes. Her trial experience has even extended to criminal matters.
Prior to joining the firm, Christine was a partner in the San Francisco office of an international law firm where she was a first-chair trial lawyer protecting innovation and achieving precedent-setting victories in patent disputes across video games, fintech, and emerging technologies.
Christine was recognized as a top patent practitioner by IAM Patent 1000 – The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners in 2026 and the three years immediately preceding. She was named by ALM California Legal Awards as a Women Leader in Tech Law, Intellectual Property Honoree, in 2024, 2025 and 2026. Christine was featured as a “Women Leader in Tech in California” in 2023 and 2025 and was named a “California Trailblazer” in 2020 by The Recorder. She was recognized as a “Top Intellectual Property Lawyer in California” in 2022 and 2023 and was selected as one of “California’s Top Women Lawyers” in 2021 by the Daily Journal.
Experience
*Represented a global test equipment manufacturer in multi-forum patent infringement dispute with litigation proceedings in the ITC (3 patents), Eastern District of Virginia (11 patents), Germany (3 patents) and multiple inter partes reviews before the PTAB. Prevailed after trial at the ITC with a finding of no violation by the ALJ, which was affirmed by the Commission and the Federal Circuit. All 3 asserted patents found invalid and 2 patents found not infringed. 100% institution rate with the PTAB on IPRs: 8 for 8. Prevailed on motion to stay EDVA action.
*Invalidated two patents relating to hospital bed graphical user interfaces on the pleadings as patent-ineligible under Section 101.
*Represented defendant computer technology company in patent infringement action in the Western District of Texas involving accusations under 3 patents against the 802.11 WiFi standard. Prevailed on motion to stay the entire action. Prevailed in inter partes reviews before the PTAB on multiple asserted claims.
*Successfully briefed and argued the section 101 invalidity of two patents directed to wirelessly outputting data from one device to another. Patents had been asserted in over two dozen cases around the United States. Plaintiff dropped Federal Circuit appeal for fees and costs waiver.
*Successfully briefed and argued Section 101 invalidity of the patent asserted in a case against a global healthcare technology company, then briefed the issue in a winning appellate brief. Law360 named this decision as one of the Federal Circuit’s “most significant patent rulings since the beginning of 2019.”
*Defended a video game company against allegations of infringement of a patent involving user authentication. Invalidated asserted claim (which had survived IPR) on Rule 12(b)(6) motion under Section 101.
*Prevailed as lead trial counsel representing a U.S.-based electronic options exchange in Covered Business Method Review proceedings at Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Invalidated two electronic trading patents under Section 101.
*Obtained dismissal for no payment by a manufacturer of wireless surveillance cameras after suggesting defense trial team would prevail on 12(b)(6) motion to invalidate patent under Section 101.
*Obtained dismissal with prejudice for no payment by advanced-technology conglomerate after serving Rule 11 letter on plaintiff demonstrating its case lacked merit.
*Obtained dismissal for no payment by a consumer electronics company after serving Rule 11 letter on plaintiff demonstrating its case lacked merit.
*Successfully resolved claims asserting video game mechanic patents upon eve of filing IPR petition.
*Obtained dismissal for no payment by a multinational transportation company after serving Rule 11 motion demonstrating plaintiff’s case lacked merit.
*Authored winning Section 101 brief, invalidating five “groupware” patents that formed the basis for much of the $270M in damages asserted against a global leader in information management software. After the trial team prevailed on a summary judgment of no willfulness and a motion to strike plaintiff’s damages expert, the case went to trial. After a 2-week jury trial, the jury awarded plaintiff less than 2% of its original damages claim. Case settled on appeal.
*Trial counsel for a Taiwanese fabless semiconductor company in first U.S. trial in which jurors were asked to decide the licensing terms for declared Standard Essential patents. The defendant previously committed to license two patents declared essential to IEEE 802.11 Wi-Fi standards under reasonable and nondiscriminatory (RAND) terms. On summary judgment, Judge Ronald Whyte found the defendant to have breached that commitment by suing our client in the International Trade Commission (ITC) for patent infringement without first making a RAND offer. Following a two-week trial in 2014, the jury set a RAND rate believed to be the lowest ever to be set for comparable technologies related to declared standard essential patents. The jury also awarded our client $3.8 million in attorney’s fees incurred in defending the ITC proceeding initiated by the defendant. *Invalidated patent to computerized incentive program on summary judgment under 35 U.S.C. §§ 101, 102, and 103.
*Obtained complete dismissal of a privately held telecommunications and technology services company after motion practice in case alleging infringement of patent declared essential to 802.11 WiFi standards.
*Trial counsel for Wi-Fi router and laptop marketers sued on cell technology patents alleged to be essential to the Wi-Fi standard. Obtained reversal of patent infringement and RAND damages award due to lack of substantial evidence and erroneous jury instruction. Case administratively closed after finding by patent office that patents to be retried are invalid.
*Trial counsel for a Taiwanese fabless semiconductor company in ITC hearing involving products alleged to infringe patent involving packaging and analog circuitry.
*Represented defendants in patent infringement action relating to ink jet printer cartridge technology. Matter settled favorably on eve of trial.
*Represented defendant in copyright and trademark infringement action related to a long-running Christian television program episode. Obtained dismissal after filing 12(b)(6) motion.
*Second-chaired three-week arbitral hearing arising out of claims for securities fraud brought by 20 investors after failure of a $350 million real estate investment in East Palo Alto, California. Won complete defense award for our clients, which was thereafter judicially confirmed.
*Represented claimant, a Korean research institute, in action concerning joint development agreement relating to CDMA technology. Obtained favorable arbitration award totaling more than $200 million.
*Second-chaired jury trial in case involving breach of contract to sell hotel, resulting in seven-figure verdict for client.
*Experience gained by attorney prior to joining Kilpatrick
Insights View All
Events
Santa Clara University School of Law J.D. (1993) cum laude
University of California, Davis B.S., Managerial and Agricultural Economics (1989)
California (1993)
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Estonia, Honorary Consul and Representative in San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area (2025-Present)
Lead Counsel Summit, Founding Member, Training Next Generation Lead Counsel In Intellectual Property Litigation and Appeals
Santa Clara University School of Law, Adjunct Professor, Teaching “Litigating Section 101 Patent Eligibility” (2023-Present)
Disclaimer
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.
