Gregory T. Chuebon focuses his practice on intellectual property litigation and has over a decade of experience protecting and enforcing intellectual property rights in federal courts across the country.  Mr. Chuebon regularly represents some of the world's largest consumer products and technology companies, both as plaintiffs and defendants, in patent litigation matters involving high-profile, flagship products.  He has also secured substantial jury awards for patent holders for violations of intellectual property rights.

Mr. Chuebon has represented clients in patent litigation matters in a wide range of hardware, software and communications technologies, including mobile devices, mobile payment systems, wireless communications, motherboard chipsets, e commerce systems, GPS/geolocation, peer-to-peer networks, secure communication protocols, data backup/recovery, data compression and numerous standards-based technologies such as Bluetooth, IEEE 802.11ac MU-MIMO and Power-over-Ethernet systems.  He also advises clients on intellectual property issues related to various investments, mergers, acquisitions and other transactional matters. 

    • IOENGINE v. Imation (D. Del.) and IOENGINE v. International Media Corporation (D. Del.). Representation of IOENGINE as trial counsel in cases involving secure USB storage devices.  Two separate juries found all asserted claims of IOENGINE's patent valid and infringed, and credited IOENGINE's founder as the sole inventor of the patented technology, collectively awarding millions of dollars in damages for past infringement.
    • IOENGINE v. PayPal Holdings (D. Del.) and Ingenico v. IOENGINE (D. Del.). Representation of IOENGINE, LLC as a plaintiff in two patent infringement cases pending in the District of Delaware involving secure, portable payment devices.  Mr. Chuebon also represented IOENGINE at the PTAB with regards to 12 petitions for inter partes review filed by PayPal Holdings and Ingenico, securing non-institution of nine of the 12 petitions.  Of the three IPRs that were instituted, the PTAB confirmed the non-invalidity of more than a dozen claims.  These cases are proceeding, with trial expected in late 2021 or early 2022.
    • AmberWave Systems v. Intel (E.D. Tex and D. Del.). Representation of Intel as a defendant in two cases involving “Intelligent I/O (I2O)” ‘peer-to-peer I/O’ technology in motherboard chipsets and data backup and recovery software.
    • Xpoint Technologies. v. Cypress Semiconductor (D. Del.) and Xpoint Technologies v. Farstone Technology (D. Del). Representation of Intel as a defendant in two cases involving Intelligent I/O ‘peer-to-peer I/O’ technology in motherboard chipsets and data backup and recovery software. 
    • Representation of a major consumer electronics company as a defendant in multiple patent litigation matters regarding flagship mobile phone and tablet devices. 
    • Azure Networks v. MediaTek and Azure Networks v. CSR (E.D. Tex.). Representation of MediaTek, CSR and Cambridge Silicon Radio as defendants in a patent litigation matter involving ‘personal area network’ devices and communication.
    • 3COM v. D-Link Systems (D. Del. and N.D. Cal.). Representation of 3COM as a defendant in a patent litigation matter involving early-interrupt networking technology.  A N.D. Cal. jury found all three asserted patents valid and willfully infringed, awarding over US$45 million in damages.
    • XR Communications v. D-Link Systems (C.D. Cal.). Representation of Ubiquiti Networks as a defendant in a patent litigation involving IEEE 802.11ac networking devices supporting MU-MIMO technology.
    • Telinit Technologies v. Spotify (E.D. Tex.). Representation of Spotify as a defendant in a patent litigation involving peer-to-peer data hosting and delivery.
    • CSR Technology v. Bandspeed (D. Ariz., C.D. Cal, and W.D. Tex.). Representation of CSR as a plaintiff in a patent litigation matter involving using frequency-agile systems to detect and identify characteristics of transmitting devices in a network.
    • CSR v. Broadcom and SiRF Technology v. SBCG (C.D. Cal.). Representation of CSR and SiRF as plaintiffs in patent litigation matters involving GPS receivers used in smartphones and mobile navigation devices.
    • Network-1 Security Solutions v. Cisco Systems (E.D. Tex.). Representation of Hewlett-Packard as a defendant in a patent litigation involving Power-Over-Ethernet technology.
    • St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants v. Siemens (D. Del.). Representation of Verizon Communications as a defendant in a patent litigation matter involving mobile phone signal processing.

    Includes matters handled at Dechert or prior to joining the firm.

    • College of William & Mary, B.S., Computer Science, 2001
    • University of Pennsylvania Law School, J.D., 2007, Senior Editor of The University of Pennsylvania Journal of Constitutional Law
    • Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, Certificate in Business and Public Policy, 2007
    • New York
    • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York
    • United States District Court for the Southern District of New York