DiNovo Price LLP | Intellectual Property and Antitrust Litigation Law Firm in Texas | Christopher Goodpastor | Representative Matters
This links to the home page
Professionals
Christopher  V. Goodpastor

PRACTICE AREAS

Patent Litigation
Inter Partes Review
Antitrust Litigation
Appellate

EDUCATION

  • University of Texas School of Law (J.D., with honors, 1994)
  • University of Texas at Austin (B.S., Chemical Engineering Honors Program, 1990)

LICENSES & ADMISSIONS

  • Licensed in Texas and California
  • United States Courts of Appeal for the Federal, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits
  • United States District Courts for the Eastern, Southern, and Western Districts of Texas
  • United States District Courts for the Central and Northern Districts of California

Affiliations

  • Named Super Lawyer, 2016 – 2022
  • Named 5th best performing attorney representing patent owners, Patexia Inc. IPR Intelligence Report
  • Texas Bar Foundation, Life Fellow
  • American Bar Association, Section of Antitrust Law
  • Austin Bar Association
  • Austin Intellectual Property Law Association
Christopher V. Goodpastor
Partner
CONTACT INFORMATION
Tel: (512) 539-2640
v-card icon V-Card
  • Inter Partes Review re Software

    Secured non-institution of four petitions for inter partes review filed against patents on 3D image-based rendering for real estate. The PTAB found the petitioner had not established “a reasonable likelihood of prevailing in demonstrating the unpatentability of any challenged claim” of the four patents because it failed (1) to explain sufficiently how the asserted prior art would be combined and (2) to provide sufficient “articulated reasoning with rational underpinning as to why one of ordinary skill in the art would have combined the teachings” of the references. 

  • Appliance Computing III, Inc. d/b/a Surefield v. Redfin Corp. (W.D. Tex.)

    Trial counsel for Surefield in a jury trial alleging Redfin’s infringement of patents related to 3D virtual tour technology, after successfully defeating related inter partes petitions.

  • Papst Licensing GmbH & Co., K.G. v. Apple, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex., PTAB, Fed. Cir.)

    Trial and appellate counsel for Papst enforcing patents related to high data rate, device-independent information transfer against multiple cell phone manufacturers. Trial court denied motion to transfer venue and appeal court denied mandamus. DiNovo Price navigated the filing of twenty-three (23) IPRs of data transfer technology patents by nine (9) accused infringers, securing non-institution of many petitions and resulting in survival of patentable claims asserted in litigation. Obtained a $5.9 million jury verdict against Samsung and settled favorably while appeal pending.

  • Thomas C. Sisoian v. International Business Machines Corp. (W.D. Tex.)

    Represented Thomas C. Sisoian in an action for misappropriation of trade secrets relating to adaptive object-model software by former employee.  Attained a favorable settlement after defeating IBM’s summary judgment motion.

  • Infinity Computer Products, Inc. v. Toshiba America Business Solutions, Inc. et al. (C.D. Cal., E.D. Pa., D. Del., E.D.N.Y., & E.D. Ky.)

    Trial and appellate counsel for Infinity Computer Products in litigations enforcing patents related to methods for transferring print and scan data between a fax machine and computer; attained favorable settlement.
     

  • In re Dental Supplies Antitrust Litigation (E.D.N.Y.)

    Represented plaintiff class 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. District court approved cash settlement of $80 million on behalf of class members.

  • In re German Automotive Manufacturers Antitrust Litigation (N.D. Cal.)

    Represent plaintiff in putative indirect purchaser 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.

  • Bandspeed, Inc. v. Sony Electronics, Inc., et al. (W.D. Tex.)

    Represented plaintiff hardware company in patent and antitrust litigation relating to Bluetooth communications against 45 hardware manufacturers and a standards setting organization. The matter settled favorably for confidential sums.

  • Silicon Services Consortium, Inc., et al. v. Applied Materials, Inc. (W.D. Tex.)

    Prior to joining the firm, partner Christopher Goodpastor 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.

  • Encore Media Metrics LLC v. Google Inc., et al. (261st Judicial District, Travis County, Texas)

    Represented web analytics provider as plaintiff in trade secret litigation relating to internet advertising analytics against a large competitor. The matter settled favorably for a confidential sum.

  • eWatch, Inc. v. Apple Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.)

    Represented 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.

  • Z-Tel Communications, Inc. v. SBC Communications, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.)

    Prior to joining the firm, partner Christopher Goodpastor 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.

  • Bandspeed, Inc. v. Broadcom Corp., et al. (W.D. Tex.)

    Represented plaintiff hardware company in a patent litigation relating to Bluetooth communications against numerous integrated circuit manufacturers. The matter settled favorably for confidential sums.

  • Inter Partes Review re Data Transfer Technology

    Navigated the filing of twenty-three (23) IPRs of data transfer technology patents by nine (9) accused infringers, securing non-institution of many petitions and resulting in survival of patentable claims asserted in litigation.