Carrie Richey counsels clients on a broad range of intellectual property litigation matters, including patent, trademark, trade secret, copyright and other intellectual property and technology disputes. She has successfully represented clients in all phases of litigation, including investigation, discovery, law and motion, trial, and appeal and post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Carrie has represented major tech companies, financial institutions, unicorns, start-up and social networking companies in numerous intellectual property litigation matters. The technology areas at issue in the matters handled by Carrie are highly varied computer hardware and software technologies and include, for example, conversational artificial intelligence, end-point security and anti-viral, anti-hacker, and anti-cyber terror restricted computing environments, end user authentication and number masking technology using cloud services, automatic optical disc discrimination, overdrive technology in plasma display screens, and sales automation and business-analytics software.
Because many of Carrie’s patent, copyright, and trade secret cases are software-related and involve source code review and forensic analysis, she plays a critical role as a technical legal strategist on most of her matters.
Carrie also handles false advertising and consumer protection matters in California.
Carrie clerked for the Honorable Judge D. Brown, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi.
Any result the lawyer or law firm may have achieved on behalf of clients in other matters does not necessarily indicate similar results can be obtained for other clients.
- Pharmavite LLC v. Netbus, Inc., C.D. Cal. (No. 2:21-cv-07400-FMO). Representing owner of well-known NATURE MADE mark in trademark litigation.
- Stewart Cellars, LLC v. West Coast Wine Partners, LLC, N.D. Cal. (No. 5:17-cv-05018). Represented WCWP in action asserting trademark infringement claims.
- Diptyque SAS, et al v. Italic, Inc., C.D. Cal. (No. 2:21-cv-08227). Represented Diptyque in action asserting claims of trademark infringement and unfair competition.
- Velodyne v. Ouster, ITC, (No. 337-TA-1322). Representing Velodyne in ITC investigation based on patent infringement of surround LiDAR technology.
- Nuance Communications Inc. v. Omilia Natural Language Solutions, Ltd., D. Mass (No. 19-cv-1143). Represented Nuance in action asserting claims for patent infringement, copyright infringement, and violations of DMCA and CFAA relating to automated speech recognition (ASR). Dismissed following confidential settlement.
- Palmer v. Nuance Communications Inc., et al., Mass. Super. (No. 19-1280). Represent Nuance in dispute with former employee relating to claim for commissions and counterclaims for misappropriation of trade secrets and violation of CFAA.
- DunAn Sensing Technology Co., Ltd et al v. Tom Nguyen, N.D. Cal. (No. 5:21-cv-06961). Represented DunAn Sensing in a patent ownership dispute.
- SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Limited et al., E.D. Tex (No. 18-cv-295). Represent SAS in software copyright and patent infringement action concerning statistical analysis and database management software.
- Software Rights Archive, LLC v. Facebook, Inc., N.D. Cal. (No. 4:12-cv-03970). Represented Facebook in patent infringement lawsuit. Nearly every asserted claim invalidated during IPR proceedings. Remaining claims invalidated in district court under Section 101.
- TeleSign Corporation v. Twilio, Inc., C.D. Cal. (No. 2:15-cv-03240). Represented Twilio, Inc. in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning user authentication. Defeated preliminary injunction motion and ultimately claims found to be invalid under Section 101.
- Vir2us, Inc. v. Invincea, Inc. et al., E.D. Va. (No. 2:15-cv-00162), Represented Invincea in patent infringement lawsuit concerning end point security. Settled on the eve of trial.
- Encoditech LLC v. Cardtronics, Inc. et al., E.D. Tex. (No. 2:15-cv-01086). Represented Cardtronics in patent infringement lawsuit. Dismissed with prejudice prior to answer.
- Blue Spike, LLC v. Texas Instruments, Inc., E.D. Tex. (No. 6:12-cv-00499). Represented Facebook in patent infringement action involving facial recognition.
- LaserDynamics v. Quanta Computer Inc., E.D. Tex. (No. 2:06-CV-348). Represented QCI in a patent infringement action concerning disc drive discrimination resulting in essentially no damages following ruling by the Federal Circuit.
Appellate and Other Notable Litigation and Proceedings
- LaserDynamics v. Quanta Computer Inc., Fed Cir. (No. 2013-1178). Federal Circuit overturned a jury verdict of $8.5 million, holding Quanta had an implied license for its optical disc drives, six percent royalty applied was arbitrary and speculative, the hypothetical negotiation should have taken place on the date direct infringement first occurred, the probative value of a certain settlement agreement was substantially outweighed by danger of unfair prejudice, and the entire market value did not apply.
- Facebook, Inc., LinkedIn Corp., and Twitter, Inc. v. Software Rights Archive, LLC, USPTO (IPR2013-00478 & IPR2013-00479). Represented Facebook in IPR proceedings that resulted in every challenged claim being found unpatentable.
- Ouster v. Velodyne, Santa Clara Super. Court (No. 22-cv-400995). Representing Velodyne in trade secret and unfair competition matter.
- New World TMT Ltd. v. Prediwave Corp., et al., Santa Clara Super. Court (No. 10:4ccv-020369). Represented New World in enforcing $2.8 billion judgment to include alter egos of the original judgment debtors as a result of fraud.
- Richey v. Giarla, San Francisco Super. Court (No. CGC-14- 542459). Represented artist “Ben Eine” in claim of breach of trust over gallery owner’s failure to pay artist commission. Obtained preliminary injunction against gallery owner.
Professional & Civic Engagement
- ChIPs Member: Advancing and Connecting Women in Technology, Law, and Policy
- Pro bono legal services: Federal Pro Bono Project Justice & Diversity Center of The Bar Association of San Francisco; KIND (Kids in Need of Defense)
- Co-Author (with Daniel Grigore), "Chew on This: What the Bad Spaniels Trademark Decision Means for Free Expression and the Metaverse," IP Watchdog, July 24, 2023
- Co-Author (with Dr. Chris Mammen), “AI and IP: Are Creativity and Inventorship Inherently Human Activities?” 14 FIU L. REV. 273, 2020
- Co-Author (with Dr. Chris Mammen), “The AI Authorship Question Under Current Copyright Law,” Law360, October 4, 2019
- “Don’t Feed the Trolls: How and When to Respond to Patent Demand Letters,” NTCA, The Rural Broadband Association, October 13, 2021
- “Supreme Court Answers Some Copyright Questions, Leaves Others Unsettled, in Google v. Oracle Decision,” May 2021