Yar R. Chaikovsky

Representative Matters

Yar's clients include those across technology fields such as networking, broadband infrastructure, LEDs, software, hardware, internet, navigation systems, video compression, wireless communications, semiconductors, consumer electronics and medical devices.

Yar has litigated in both U.S. district courts and the ITC. He has represented both plaintiffs and defendants. In representing entities such as Rovi (now TiVo) and Thomson against multiple entities, his clients received payments of more than US$1 billion. In representing defendants, he has defeated claims that in aggregate exceed more than US$1 billion. Throughout Yar's career, his clients have included:

U.S. District Court Matters

• Webroot Inc., et al. v. Trend Micro Inc. (W.D. Tex) – Lead counsel defending Trend Micro in litigation campaign against Trend Micro and four other significant entities in the security industry. Plaintiff's initially filed suit with six computer security patents and then amended to add an additional five patents, Trend Micro filed a countersuit on six of Trend Micro's patents for a total of seventeen patents at issue in this forum.*
• Trend Micro Inc. v. Open Text Inc., et al. (E.D. Va) – Lead counsel defending Trend Micro in a multi-patent litigation against Defendants relating to security software. This matter is related to the Webroot Inc. v. Trend Micro matter in W.D. Tex, for a total of twenty patents across both forums.*
• Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV) v. Trend Micro (Del.) — Lead counsel for Trend Micro in a patent infringement suit filed in the District of Delaware against Trend Micro and three other defendants. The suit concerned the alleged infringement of four IV patents that purportedly relate to security software. After leading oral argument, the Court issued an Order granting Trend Micro's Motion for Judgment of Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. Section 101 which invalidated the two remaining patents asserted against Trend Micro by IV. This ruling vacated the upcoming trial scheduled to begin shortly and was a major victory for Trend Micro as IV was seeking approximately $150,000,000 in damages. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's order. The Federal Circuit opinion's impact was featured in Fortune. IV filed a petition for rehearing en banc and that petition was denied. This order was included in the National Law Journal's "Winning Litigators" list. Named American Lawyer’s "Litigator of the Week" in September 2018, The Recorder’s "California Trailblazers" in 2019, a Law360 "Legal Lion" and "MVPs in Technology".*
• Beijing Meishe Network Technology Co., Ltd. v. TikTok Inc., et al. (W.D. Tex.) – Lead counsel for TikTok Inc., TikTok Pte. Ltd., ByteDance Ltd., and ByteDance Inc. in a global copyright infringement, trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, false advertising, unjust enrichment, and breach of fiduciary duty pertaining to copyrighted software technology. The global portion of this matter includes three cases before the Beijing High Court and six cases in the Beijing IP Court. In the U.S. litigation, TikTok and ByteDance filed a motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), motion to transfer venue 28 U.S.C. §1404(2) and a motion to stay pending transfer.*
• Bloom Energy Corp. v. Plansee SE, et al. (E.D. Tex) – Lead counsel for Bloom Energy in a complex international dispute with parallel U.S. district court proceedings relating to no trade secret misappropriation, no patent infringement, unfair competition, tortious interference, RICO, Sherman Antitrust and claim for correction of inventorsip.*
• Top Victory Investment v. DivX LLC (Ca. Superior Court, San Diego) – Lead counsel for DivX in a matter relating to breach of contract, unfair competition and related torts, and injunctive relief.*
• DivX LLC v. MediaTek Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) – Lead counsel for DivX for a breach of contract, tortious interference, fraud, misappropriation of Trade Secrets, RICO and contributory trademark infringement matter against MediaTek Inc. and MediaTek Singapore Pte. Ltd. The case resolved favorably for DivX before the initial case management conference was held.*
• East West Bank v. Sukeert Shanker, et al. (N.D. Ca.) – Lead counsel for Sukeert Shanker, Aeldra Financial, Venkat Gopalakrishan for a misappropriation of Trade Secrets, breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty and violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200. Prior to representing our clients, the Court issued a preliminary injunction. Successfully persuaded the Court to rescind the injunction and send case to arbitration. The Court awarded attorneys' fees. This was included in the The Daily Journal's February 2022 "Top Verdicts List."*
• Quintessential LLC v. Quintessential Brands S.A., et al. (N.D. Ca.) – Lead counsel for Quintessential Brands S.A., Quintessential Brands North America LLC and MHW, Ltd. for Trademark Infringement, unfair competition, derivative trademark infringement, trade secret misappropriation, unfair business practices and trademark invalidation. Successfully obtained a rare victory on a Rule 12 motion, including dismissal of key trade secret, state alcohol beverage regulation, and federal trademark cancellation terms.*
• Palo Alto Research Center Inc. v. Snap Inc. (C.D. Ca) – Lead counsel for Snap Inc. in a multi-patent litigation matter. Plaintiff filed suit against two other significant entities on overlapping patents. Successfully obtained an early victory invalidating two of the three of the asserted patents at the Rule 12 stage on Section 101 subject matter eligibility. The Court then granted Snap's motion to stay pending IPR on the two surviving patents, even prior to the IPRs being instituted.*
• BlackBerry Limited v. Snap Inc. (C.D. Ca.) – Lead counsel for Snap Inc. in a multi-patent action relating to mobile messaging technology. Secured summary judgment invalidating four of the six patents asserted against Snap. BlackBerry stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice of the remaining two patents, opting to move directly to appeal. The Federal Circuit affirmed the ruling. This case was assigned to Judge Wu.*
• 3G Licensing, S.A. et al v. HTC Corporation, et al. (Del.) – Lead counsel for HTC Corporation and HTC America in a multi-patent action relating to standard essential telecommunication technology. Led arguments in motion dismiss for improper venue or transfer on behalf of HTC and defendants in three other unrelated defendants, which resulted in an order finding that venue was improper for HTC America. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed HTC America. Successfully obtained partial summary judgment in key license defense relating to KPN's asserted patent. Successfully invalidated other asserted patents by an IPR.*
• Virginia Innovation Sciences v. HTC Corporation, et al. (E.D. VA) – Lead counsel for HTC Corporation and HTC America in a multi-patent action relating to handset technology. Successfully obtained a dismissal finding eight patents and over two hundred asserted claims invalid under Section 101 as directed to ineligible subject matter. This decision was affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeals. This affirmation resulted in being recognized as an "Appellate MVP" and "Legal Lion" by Law360, and "California Trailblazers" by The Recorder"*
• Bedrock Computer Technologies LLC v. Softlayer Technologies, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex.) — Lead counsel for Yahoo! Inc. in a multi-defendant action relating to information storage systems. Successfully secured a jury verdict of non-infringement. This verdict was included in the The National Law Journal's "Intellectual Property Hot List."*
• Cellular Communications Equipment v. AT&T Mobility (E.D. Tex) – Counsel for defendant AT&T Mobility in multiple-patent, multi-defendant litigation matters concerning headset technology. Obtained a rare sever and stay for AT&T days prior to start of trial. This order was included in the National Law Journal's 2016 "Intellectual Property Trailblazer" list. This matter was assigned to Judge Mitchell.*
• Fastenetix, LLC v. Medtronic Somafor Danek, Inc. (D. N.J.) — Lead patent litigation counsel for Fastenetix who successfully settled an action to enforce patents covering spinal implant devices. Medtronic publicly reported that it made payment of $125 million for the settlement of the litigation and purchase of the patents.*
• Baxter International, Inc. v. McGaw (N.D. Ill.) — Represented McGaw in a patent infringement suit involving three patents relating to needleless injection sites. On appeal before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the jury's verdict in favor of McGaw, including findings of infringement and invalidity, was upheld. In addition, the Federal Circuit affirmed that two of the patents were unenforceable due to inequitable conduct. The CAFC opinion remains as the seminal opinion on infectious unenforceability of patents.*
• IntraLase Corp. v. Carl Zeiss AG et al. (Cal. Sup. Ct.) – Lead counsel for defendants in a multi-year litigation and negotiation relating to alleged breach of contract and unfair competition (including trade secrets) action involving optical coherence tomography (i.e., a medical imaging technique that uses light to capture micrometer-resolution, three-dimensional images from within optical scattering biological tissue) using femtosecond laser technology for refractive laser eye surgery. Obtained a successful dismissal of the complaint and worked for many years with the client and MIT on its OCT patent portfolio and competitive analysis of other portfolios.*
• Unified Messaging Solutions v. Google, Inc., et al. (N.D. Ill.) — Lead counsel for Yahoo! Inc., eBay Inc., and Twitter Inc. in a multi-defendant, multi-patent action allegedly relating to various aspects of messaging technology. The suit concerns five related patents that allegedly cover Internet retrieval of multiple types of messages. After successfully consolidating the action with dozens of later-filed actions pending against other defendants around the United States, Mr. Chaikovsky obtained a claim construction order that required plaintiff to stipulate to a judgment of non-infringement in favor of all defendants.*

ITC Section 337 Matters

• In the Matter of Certain Wireless Communication Devices and Related Components Thereof (USITC 337-TA-1180) ) — Lead counsel for HTC in an ITC investigation involving two patents and three district court actions that involved an additional nine patents. The patents related to various aspects of handset technology. Successfully secured a global settlement on behalf of HTC relating to all existing litigation matters with Complaint/Plaintiff Virginia Innovation Sciences.*
• In the Matter of Semiconductor Devices, Semiconductor Device Packages, and Products Containing Same (USITC 337-TA-1110) — Counsel for HTC Corporation and HTC America, Inc. in an ITC action before U.S. Customs and Border Protection to enforce an ITC exclusion order.*
• Nokia Inc., et al. v. HTC America, et al. (Del.) and In the Matter of Certain Electronic Devices, Including Mobile Phones and Tablet Computers, and Components Thereof (USITC 337-TA-847) — Lead counsel for HTC in an ITC investigation involving nine patents and three district court actions that involved an additional nine patents. Additionally assisted in coordinating close to 50 European actions ongoing concurrently. The patents related to various aspects of handset technology. After knocking out five of the nine patents in the ITC prior to the hearing, and two more as a result of the hearing, the parties reached a successful global settlement after the Commission granted review on multiple grounds on the two remaining patents.*
• In the Matter of Certain Baseband Processor Chips and Chipsets, Transmitter and Receiver (Radio) Chips, Power Control Chips, and Products Containing Same, Including Cellular Telephones Handsets (USITC 337-TA-543) — Represented Broadcom in an ITC action before U.S. Customs and Border Protection to enforce an ITC exclusion order.*
• In the Matter of Certain Color Television Receivers and Color Display Monitors, and Components Thereof (USITC 337-TA-534) — Represented Thomson Licensing S.A. and Thomson Licensing Inc. in a successful five-patent ITC trial against BenQ and AU Optronics. The case involved flat panel display and semiconductor chip technology, including 2 patents relating to the silicon nitride structure and the related-PECVD deposition process for TFT transistors. The case was filed because the LCD panel manufacturing industry had rejected Thomson's overtures to license its LCD patent portfolio as Thomson had been known for its CRT patent portfolio. Significantly for Thomson, the victory in this matter broke the licensing logjam and resulted in the other LCD manufacturers taking a license to Thomson's LCD portfolio patents. Yar lead the argument at the hearing before the ALJ that caused the Respondents to lose its defenses on the two critical silicon nitride TFT patents. *

Appellate Matters

• BlackBerry Limited v. Snap Inc. (C.D. Ca.) – Lead counsel for Snap Inc. in a multi-patent action relating to mobile messaging technology. Secured summary judgment invalidating four of the six patents asserted against Snap. BlackBerry stipulated to a dismissal with prejudice of the remaining two patents, opting to move directly to appeal. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the ruling.*
• Virginia Innovation Sciences v. HTC Corporation, et al. (E.D. VA) – Lead counsel for HTC Corporation and HTC America in a multi-patent action relating to handset technology. Successfully obtained a dismissal finding eight patents and over two hundred asserted claims invalid under Section 101 as directed to ineligible subject matter. This ruling was affirmed by the Federal Court of Appeals. Named a Law360 "Appellate MVP" a "Legal Lion" and "California Trailblazers" by The Recorder."*
• Intellectual Ventures LLC (IV) v. Trend Micro (Del.) — Lead counsel for Trend Micro in a patent infringement suit filed in the District of Delaware against Trend Micro and three other defendants. The suit concerned the alleged infringement of four IV patents that purportedly relate to security software. After leading oral argument, the Court issued an Order granting Trend Micro's Motion for Judgment of Invalidity Under 35 U.S.C. Section 101 which invalidated the two remaining patents asserted against Trend Micro by IV. This ruling vacated the upcoming trial scheduled to begin shortly and was a major victory for Trend Micro as IV was seeking approximately $150,000,000 in damages. The Federal Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court's order. The Federal Circuit opinion's impact was featured in Fortune. IV filed a petition for rehearing en banc and that petition was denied. This order was included in the National Law Journal's "Winning Litigators" list. Named American Lawyer’s "Litigator of the Week" in September 2018, "California Trailblazers" by The Recorder in 2019, a Law360 "Legal Lion" and a "MVPs in Technology".*
• SecurityProfiling LLC v. Trend Micro, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex) – Lead counsel for Trend Micro in a patent infringement suit filed in the Eastern District of Texas in a multi-patent action relating to computer software. Successfully transferred matter from the Eastern District of Texas to the Northern District of Texas. Successfully resolved this matter favorably for Trend Micro after invalidating the patents before the US PTO. The Federal Circuit affirmed this ruling.*
• Unified Messaging Solutions LLC v. Google, Inc., et. al. ( (Represented Yahoo!, eBay, and Twitter and led a large defense group (60+ defendants) at the Markman hearing and obtained a ruling so damaging to plaintiff’s case that it was forced to stipulate to non-infringement. Thereafter, we led the defense group to an award of attorneys’ fees based on an exceptional case finding. This case represents a complete victory as lead/liaison counsel in a MDL against a sophisticated plaintiff, in a case worth in excess of $100 million. Affirmed on appeal. Named a 2018 Law360 MVP in Appellate.*

*Matters prior to joining White & Case