Eric Krause tries patent and trade secret cases concerning technology ranging from semiconductor fabrication and design to IoT, cloud computing, and everything in between. Drawing on his experience as a former Electrical and Computer Engineer at AMD in the fields of BIOS, systems management, and network architecture, from the time when AMD was the sole supplier of 64-bit x86 CPUs, Eric develops and presents compelling defenses at trial based on the technology at issue. As a registered patent attorney, he frequently manages the interplay between IPR and litigation proceedings. His record for obtaining defense victories in key patent venues such as the Eastern and Western Districts of Texas, Delaware, ITC, and PTAB has been recognized by IAM Patent 1000.
In addition to his intellectual property caseload, Eric participates in the Veterans Consortium Pro Bono Program and has assisted the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence and volunteered for the Southern Poverty Law Center’s Southeast Immigrant Freedom Initiative.
Professional Activities
- Eastern District of Texas Bench Bar Planning Committee
- ITC Trial Lawyers Association
Experience
- Applied Materials v. Ocean Semiconductor (PTAB)
Final written decisions of unpatentability of all 100+ challenged claims of four semiconductor manufacturing patents asserted in ten litigations across three district courts. - Certain UMTS and LTE Cellular Communication Modules and Products Containing Same (ITC)
Final determination of no violation based on non-infringement and invalidity of all four asserted patents targeting UMTS/LTE standards and mobile communication modules. - Certain Liquid Crystal Display Devices, Including Monitors, Televisions, and Modules, and Components Thereof (ITC; Fed. Cir.)
Final determination of no violation as to all five patents asserted by Thomson (formerly Technicolor) on behalf of Respondents Chimei InnoLux, InnoLux, and Chi Mei Optoelectronics USA, affirmed by Federal Circuit. - Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof (ITC)
Initial determination of no violation of all intervened patents. - De La Vega v. Google (W.D. Tex. Waco Div.)
Dismissal with prejudice at pleadings stage of patent claim involving live video streaming. - VideoShare v. YouTube et al. (D. Del.; Fed. Cir.)
Judgment of invalidity of all asserted patents involving video uploading/publishing, affirmed by Federal Circuit. - Allure Energy v. Nest Labs (E.D. Tex.)
Denial of preliminary injunction motion and judgment of invalidity based on indefiniteness. - Tse v. Samsung (N.D. Cal.; Fed. Cir.)
Judgment of invalidity of patent directed to software license control, affirmed by Federal Circuit; petition for rehearing en banc and cert. petition denied. - SentriLock v. Carrier (D. Del.)
Represent defendant in patent dispute
Honors
- IAM Patent 1000, World's Leading Patent Professionals (2023)
News
- Axinn and IP Partners Ranked by IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals
- Axinn Scores Multiple IPR Victories on Behalf of Applied Materials
- Commission Affirms Axinn’s ITC Victory for Thales
- Axinn Continues West Coast Expansion with Addition of Three Senior Intellectual Property Litigators
Thought Leadership
- How the U.S. Supreme Court Affected the Lives of U.S. IP Lawyers in 2023, IAM, December 29, 2023
- Axinn IP Update: Federal Circuit Clarifies Permissible Scope of Petitioner Reply, August 16, 2023
- USPTO’s ANPRM Sets the Stage for Latest Revamp of the Discretionary Denial Process, IPWatchdog, May 7, 2023
- Federal Circuit Reverses Course on ‘Appropriate Deference’ in Indefiniteness Determinations, Bloomberg Law, January 5, 2023
- The Uncertain Future of Patent Indefiniteness Under Federal Circuit's Deference Standard, Bloomberg Law, May 6, 2022
- Axinn IP Update: Federal Circuit Confirms That AAPA Cannot Be the Basis for IPRs, But Leaves the “Basis” Determination Question Open, Axinn Update, February 3, 2022
- Banks Fear Patent Lawsuit ‘Avalanche’ After Review Program Ends, Bloomberg Law, September 15, 2020
- Tuning in to Covered Business Method Review's Series Finale, Law360, September 15, 2020
- PTAB Memo Creates Consistency but ‘Shows Pro-patent Agenda’, Managing Intellectual Property, August 31, 2020
- USPTO Clarifies Rules on Prior Art at PTAB, World IP Review, August 20, 2020
- USPTO Says Patent Specification is Evidence, Not Prior Art, Law360, August 19, 2020
Events
Education
- JD, cum laude – University of California, Hastings College of Law (2008)
- BS, Electrical Engineering – Rice University (2000)
Admissions
- California
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
- U.S. District Court Northern District of California
- U.S. District Court Eastern District of Texas
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- U.S. District Court Western District of Texas
Spotlight
“Eric Krause is a well-rounded litigator who has carefully honed superb advocacy skills in a multitude of forums. Whether representing clients at federal district courts, the ITC or PTAB, Krause is sure to put in a resonant performance.”
- IAM Patent 1000