ChandlerPC

I'll research this firm before writing.

ChandlerPC — Patent Litigation Practice Summary

Firm overview. The structured case data identifies the firm as "ChandlerPC," with a single tracked patent-litigation appearance and one named attorney, Theodore W. Chandler. I could not locate a standalone firm website, Chambers profile, Law360 firm page, or AmLaw ranking for an entity under this name, so its office footprint, headcount, and headquarters are not verifiable from public sources. Based on the single appearance and the absence of any AmLaw or Chambers presence, the best-supported characterization is a solo or very small IP practice rather than a BigLaw firm or an established IP boutique. One important caveat: the best-documented Theodore W. Chandler in patent litigation is a partner at Baker Botts LLP in San Francisco (previously Sidley Austin LLP), Harvard Law J.D. 2000, Princeton B.S.E. computer science, registered before the USPTO, past president of LAIPLA, and recognized in The Best Lawyers in America for Litigation–Patent since 2023 (Baker Botts profile). Whether "ChandlerPC" is a separate solo professional corporation or a docket/litigation-database listing for a local-counsel engagement by that attorney is not resolvable from the public record; the reader should treat the firm-level facts below as thin.

IP litigation specialty. The sole tracked matter, GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy, is a mobile-gaming software case: GREE's asserted patents claimed graphical user interfaces and card-battle game mechanics for games such as Clash Royale and Clash of Clans, litigated in the Eastern District of Texas. That is consistent with the technology profile associated with Theodore W. Chandler's public bio — electronics, software, and medical devices, with additional experience in semiconductors/optics, LEDs, memory modules, digital televisions, and standards-based wireless (2G/3G) patents. Firm-level technology focus beyond this one data point is not independently documented.

Side preference. The tracked data show 0 plaintiff-side and 1 defendant-side appearance, in a local counsel role. This is a defense-side profile, but the sample size is a single case, and the assignment was local counsel rather than lead trial counsel — so no inference should be drawn about the firm's broader plaintiff/defendant mix or about who it typically represents (operating companies vs. NPEs).

Notable case and public outcomes. GREE, Inc. v. Supercell Oy (E.D. Tex., Nos. 2:19-cv-00071, -00161, -00200, -00237, -00310, -00311, before Judge Gilstrap) was a multi-patent campaign in which GREE, represented by Kilpatrick Townsend, obtained two willful-infringement jury verdicts against Supercell — approximately $8.5 million in September 2020 and approximately $92 million in May 2021, for a combined total reported by GREE's counsel as over $100 million. Supercell's defense was led by Fenwick & West. No verdict, settlement term, or appellate result attributable specifically to ChandlerPC's involvement is publicly documented; its recorded role was local counsel for the defendant. Separately, Federal Circuit and § 101 rulings in the campaign went partly Supercell's way (the district court adopted a report and recommendation granting Supercell's § 101 invalidity motions in one of the GREE cases).

PTAB / IPR practice. The GREE v. Supercell dispute generated substantial PTAB activity by the defense side, including PGR2018-00029, PGR2018-00047, PGR2020-00043, PGR2020-00053, and IPR2020-00215. Chandler's public bio states that he is registered before the USPTO and handles reexaminations and IPRs in parallel with litigation; third-party aggregators (Docket Alarm, Ex Parte) list reexamination and PTAB/Federal Circuit activity under his registration number, but these are unofficial estimates, not audited figures, and none can be attributed to "ChandlerPC" as a firm. There is no public report establishing a firm-level IPR filing volume.

Practice leadership. Only one attorney is identified in the tracked data: Theodore W. Chandler, the firm's sole named practitioner. If the correct reference is the Baker Botts partner of the same name, additional practice leaders would come from that firm's IP group, not from ChandlerPC; I have not named them here because doing so would conflate two different firm entities. Any partner list for ChandlerPC itself should be confirmed directly with the firm or via a current state bar / PACER docket check rather than inferred.