Christine Woodin focuses her practice on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation. She has worked on important cases in a variety of industries – including managing global patent licensing disputes, defending billion-dollar product lines from patent assertions, pursuing and defending antitrust claims, and handling breach of contract and other critical commercial disputes for her clients. Ms. Woodin has experience in all aspects of these cases, including counseling on pre-suit strategy, conducting effective offensive and defensive discovery, deposing witnesses and defending depositions, drafting dispositive and pre-trial motions, preparing for trial, presenting witnesses at trial, and handling appeals.
Prior to joining Hueston Hennigan, Ms. Woodin was a principal in the Los Angeles office of McKool Smith, where she handled patent infringement disputes in a wide range of industries, including cases involving standard essential patents subject to FRAND or RAND obligations. Ms. Woodin began her legal career at Irell & Manella LLP.
During law school, Ms. Woodin was a comment editor for the University of Chicago Legal Forum. At the California Institute of Technology (Caltech), Ms. Woodin carried out research in computational applied mathematics and was a recipient of the Monticello Research Fellowship.
Experience
Match Group LLC et al. v. Google LLC et al. Obtained a favorable settlement exceeding $300 million in value for Match Group against Google over its illegal monopolization and other anticompetitive behavior in the distribution of mobile apps and processing of in-app purchases. (See “Epic Games Against Google on Deck After Match Settlement,” Daily Journal; “The Match-Google antitrust settlement netted the dating app maker over $300M,” TechCrunch).
Lightguide, Inc v. Amazon.com. Secured a favorable settlement for Amazon.com in a patent infringement lawsuit in the Eastern District of Texas alleging over a billion in damages for use of Amazon Robotic’s technology in Amazon’s fulfillment centers.
Shure v. Clearone. Obtained a complete defense verdict for ClearOne Inc. in trial against Shure Incorporated involving design patent for beamforming microphone arrays that the jury found to be not infringed and invalid. (See “Jury Says Microphone Co. Shure’s Patent Invalid After Trial,” Law360).
Ericsson v. Apple. Represented Ericsson in a worldwide dispute against Apple over fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms for a cross-license to the parties’ cellular standard-essential patents. After four days of trial in the Eastern District of Texas, the parties announced a global settlement. (See “Apple And Ericsson Cut Deal To End EDTX, ITC Fights,” Law360).
GoodPop v. JonnyPops. Representing GoodPop, makers of better-for-you frozen treats, in a lawsuit filed against JonnyPops, makers of competitive frozen fruit pops primarily made with cane sugar, for unfair competition and false advertising around added sugar. (See “‘GoodPop, Bad Pop’: Hueston Hennigan Files Suit Against Freezer Pop-Maker Alleging False Advertising,” Law.com; “GoodPop Says Rival Misleads With ‘100% Real Fruit’ Claim,” Law360; “JonnyPops Accused of Falsely Saying Its Popsicles Are 100% Fruit,” Bloomberg).
Speyside v. Medtronic. Representing Medtronic in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning medical device technology.
TotalEnergies Renewables USA v. Trina Solar. Representing TotalEnergies in a lawsuit against a solar module manufacturer involving fraud and breach of contract claims.
HTC v. Ericsson. Represented Ericsson in a worldwide dispute over FRAND terms for a license to Ericsson’s cellular standard-essential patents in both federal court and international arbitration. In February 2019, successfully defended Ericsson in a first-of-its-kind FRAND jury trial in the Eastern District of Texas. The verdict was affirmed on appeal to the Fifth Circuit.
Don Lee Farms v. Beyond Meat. Represented Don Lee Farms against Beyond Meat alleging breach of contract, fraud, and negligent misrepresentation arising out of Beyond Meat’s termination of an exclusive supply agreement; and defended against Beyond Meat’s related cross-claims alleging breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets, trademark infringement, and fraud.
Ericsson v. Samsung. Represented Ericsson in cross-patent infringement and breach-of-FRAND actions in the Eastern District of Texas. Secured an anti-anti-suit injunction for Ericsson, barring Samsung from enforcing a Chinese injunction that would have required the parties’ dispute be heard exclusively in Wuhan.
Sol IP v. Ericsson. Defended Ericsson in a patent infringement action involving 20 patents related to LTE wireless technology in the Eastern District of Texas.
Optis Wireless Technology et al. v. Huawei. Represented plaintiffs in a patent infringement suit in the Eastern District of Texas related to LTE technologies. After a five-day trial, the jury found infringement, willfulness, no invalidity, and awarded substantial damages for each of the five patents-in-suit.
Immunex v. Sanofi and Regeneron. Represented defendants Sanofi and Regeneron in a patent infringement suit in the Central District of California regarding their breakthrough drug Dupixent®. Prevailed in an inter partes review challenging the sole asserted patent, a win later affirmed by the Federal Circuit. The district court case was subsequently dismissed.
TCL v. Ericsson. Represented Ericsson involving a dispute over fair, reasonable, and non-discriminatory (FRAND) terms for a license to Ericsson’s 2G, 3G, and 4G standard-essential patents, at trial in the Central District of California and on appeal to the Federal Circuit. The case was reversed and remanded after the Federal Circuit agreed Ericsson was denied its right to a jury trial.
Recognitions
- Top IP Lawyers, Daily Journal (2023-2024)
- Legal Visionary, Los Angeles Times (2024)
- Women of Influence: Attorneys, Los Angeles Business Journal (2024)
- 40 & Under Hot List, Benchmark Litigation (2024)
Insights
- 11/7/2024
- "Hsu Untied" podcast opens in a new tab