1. Home
  2. |Professionals
  3. |Gang Chen

Gang ChenPh.D.

Partner | Ph.D.
Partner | Ph.D.
Z2FuZ2NoZW5AY3Jvd2VsbC5jb20=
VCard
VCard

Areas of Focus

Overview

Having a Ph.D. degree in physics and M.S. degrees in both electrical engineering and physics, and with extensive R&D experiences, Gang Chen litigates complex matters involving a wide variety of technologies.  Gang handles a large docket of patent prosecution matters in the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO). Gang also routinely helps clients with IP due diligence investigations and provides counseling on corporate legal issues involving technological subject matters and general IP portfolio management, transaction, and strategies.

Gang previously had extensive research/development experiences in a world-renowned industrial lab followed by several years of in-house experiences in handling intellectual property matters such as asset mining, patent assertion and licensing.  Gang’s technical experiences span a variety of areas including wireless/wireline telecommunications networks, electronic/optical devices and components, semiconductors, data analytics/modeling, artificial intelligence, autonomies, quantum information processing/computation, and advanced physics and material researches.

Gang Chen uses his analytical skills and technical acumen in handling challenging and complex litigation matters involving a variety of technologies in federal courts and in International Trade Commission (e.g., Section 337 investigations), and in post-grant proceedings (such as inter parties review) in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO.  Gang is highly active in handling all phases of invention harvesting, patent drafting, and patent prosecution process on behalf of domestic and international enterprises, universities, and research institutions of all sizes. 

Gang was with Brinks Gilson & Lione, which merged with Crowell & Moring in July 2021. Gang co-chaired the firm’s China task force at Brinks, working with a large number of Chinese technology companies doing business or planning to do business in the U.S. on a variety of legal matters.   

Career & Education

    • Alcatel-Lucent
      Senior Segment Manager, Intellectual Property Business Group, 2009 – 2015
    • Bell Labs
      Principle Researcher, 2002 – 2009
    • University of Michigan
      Graduate Researcher, 1996 – 2002
    • Alcatel-Lucent
      Senior Segment Manager, Intellectual Property Business Group, 2009 – 2015
    • Bell Labs
      Principle Researcher, 2002 – 2009
    • University of Michigan
      Graduate Researcher, 1996 – 2002

    • Beijing University, B.S., Physics, 1995
    • University of Michigan, M.S., Electrical Engineering, 2000
    • University of Michigan, Ph.D., Physics, 2002
    • Seton Hall University, J.D., 2015
    • Beijing University, B.S., Physics, 1995
    • University of Michigan, M.S., Electrical Engineering, 2000
    • University of Michigan, Ph.D., Physics, 2002
    • Seton Hall University, J.D., 2015

    • Illinois
    • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)
    • Illinois
    • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)

    • Mandarin
    • Mandarin

Gang 's Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.27.25

Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split on Scope of IPR Estoppel

As part of the 2012 America Invents Act, statutory estoppel was included to balance the interests of patent owners and patent challengers following an inter partes review (“IPR”).  Estoppel prevents an IPR petitioner from later asserting in court that a claim “is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR.  35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2).  As applied, estoppel prevents petitioners from later relying in district court or in ITC proceedings on most patents or printed publications – the limited bases upon which petitioner can rely in an IPR.  But a question remained, and contradictory district court decisions arose, as to whether petitioners would be estopped from relying on a prior art commercial product (known as “device art,” which could not itself have been raised in the IPR) even if a printed publication describing the product (i.e. a patent or technical manual) was available and presumably could have been raised. ...

View All Insights

Representative Matters

  • Certain Video Processing Devices, Components Thereof, and Digital Smart Televisions Containing the Same, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1222. Representing TCL respondents in the ITC action and corresponding district court case.
  • DivX, LLC v. MediaTek Inc., et al., No. 1:20-cv-01203 (D. Del. filed September 9, 2020). Representing TCL in the district court patent action.
  • Polaris PowerLED Technologies, LLC v. TCL Corporation et al, No. 8:20-cv-00127 (C.D. Cal. filed January 21, 2020). Represented TCL in the district court patent action and corresponding IPR proceeding.
  • American Patents LLC v. Hisense Co. Ltd. et al., No. 4:18-cv-00768 (E.D. Tex. filed October 26, 2018). Represented Hisense in the district court patent action.
  • American Patents LLC v. ZTE Corporation et al, No. 4:18-cv-00675 (E.D. Tex. filed September 24, 2018). Represented ZTE in the district court patent action.
  • Fractus SA v. ZTE Corporation et al., 2:17-cv-00561 (E.D. Tex., Transferred to N.D. Tex., filed September 28, 2018). Represented ZTE in the district court patent action.
  • Creative Technology Ltd. v. ZTE Corporation et al., 2:16-cv-00262 (E.D. Tex., filed March 24, 2016). Represented ZTE in the district court patent action.
  • Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof, ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-994. Representing ZTE respondents in the ITC action.
  • ZTE Corporation et al. v. ConentGuard Holdings, Inc., 3:13-CV-03073 (S.D. Cal., filed December 17, 2013). Represented ZTE in the district court patent action.

Gang 's Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.27.25

Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split on Scope of IPR Estoppel

As part of the 2012 America Invents Act, statutory estoppel was included to balance the interests of patent owners and patent challengers following an inter partes review (“IPR”).  Estoppel prevents an IPR petitioner from later asserting in court that a claim “is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR.  35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2).  As applied, estoppel prevents petitioners from later relying in district court or in ITC proceedings on most patents or printed publications – the limited bases upon which petitioner can rely in an IPR.  But a question remained, and contradictory district court decisions arose, as to whether petitioners would be estopped from relying on a prior art commercial product (known as “device art,” which could not itself have been raised in the IPR) even if a printed publication describing the product (i.e. a patent or technical manual) was available and presumably could have been raised. ...

View All Insights

Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.27.25

Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split on Scope of IPR Estoppel

Press Coverage | 03.08.24

How I Made Partner: 'Asking Questions Is Not A Weakness,' Says Gang Chen Of Crowell & Moring

Client Alert | 6 min read | 02.15.24

Federal Circuit Grapples with Not-So-Obvious Answers for Design Patent Prior Art Test

Publication | 01.10.24

Patents: A Proposed Legislative Fix for Patent Eligibility Ambiguity Could Impact Litigation Strategy

View All Insights

Practices

Industries

Gang 's Insights

Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.27.25

Federal Circuit Resolves Circuit Split on Scope of IPR Estoppel

As part of the 2012 America Invents Act, statutory estoppel was included to balance the interests of patent owners and patent challengers following an inter partes review (“IPR”).  Estoppel prevents an IPR petitioner from later asserting in court that a claim “is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised” during the IPR.  35 U.S.C. § 315(e)(2).  As applied, estoppel prevents petitioners from later relying in district court or in ITC proceedings on most patents or printed publications – the limited bases upon which petitioner can rely in an IPR.  But a question remained, and contradictory district court decisions arose, as to whether petitioners would be estopped from relying on a prior art commercial product (known as “device art,” which could not itself have been raised in the IPR) even if a printed publication describing the product (i.e. a patent or technical manual) was available and presumably could have been raised. ...

View All Insights