Reset Password


Change Password

Old Password:
New Password:
We have completed your request.
M. Craig Tyler

M. Craig Tyler Partner, Intellectual Property

Craig Tyler is a veteran trial and appellate lawyer, intellectual property litigator and counselor, with a primary focus on legal issues and disputes involving complicated technology in a variety of industries.

Craig has extensive experience in technical litigation matters, such as patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, trademark infringement, the Lanham Act, copyright infringement, enforceability of covenants not to compete, and unfair competition claims. With  over two decades of experience, he has litigated more than 180 technical cases involving claims of trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement cases, including 13 trials in state and federal courts, as well as providing guidance, counseling and coordination of IP enforcement and defense efforts throughout the world. He has also appeared before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

Craig designs innovative solutions and litigation approaches that haven’t been pursued by other firms. He works as a trusted partner to the businesses he represents. Craig’s work has earned him the appreciation of clients, who have praised his mastery of critical facts, strategic thinking and thoughtful advice. "He immediately impressed all of us with how quickly he synthesized the key legal issues and laid out a plan for moving forward," one client explained. "[He] was excellent at placing IP matters into the appropriate 'big picture' context for our company." (Chambers USA 2019)

Experience Highlights

Patent Litigation

  • (ITC) – Lead trial counsel for consumer products company in asserting patent infringement, trademark infringement, copyright infringement, false advertising and unfair competition claims against multiple Chinese-based counterfeit manufacturers, as well as large online marketplaces including Alibaba, DH Gate, Wish.com and Bonanza; after institution and successful motion practice and discovery, successfully settled the dispute against the online marketplaces and obtained default judgments against the Chinese-based counterfeit manufacturers
  • (E.D. Tex.) — As lead trial counsel for AU Optronics, won summary judgment of invalidity of the asserted patent shortly before trial 
  • (E.D. Tex.) — Lead trial counsel for Google in a patent case asserted by non-practicing entity (NPE) eContact; handled the claim construction hearing that resulted in the court ruling that the asserted patent was invalid for indefiniteness on several terms
  • (W.D. Tex.) — Defended Planview, which had been accused of infringing four software-related patents that were owned by Versata (f/k/a Trilogy); quickly identified Planview's own prior art software products and assembled working demonstrations of prior art that would be powerful at trial; based on this quickly assembled prior art, Planview secured a favorable settlement within months of the case being filed, saving Planview millions in attorneys' fees and costs necessary to take the case to trial
  • (ITC); (D.Del.) — Lead trial counsel in a multi-national patent litigation between Sharp and AU Optronics; after Sharp initiated the patent litigation by asserting seven patents against AU Optronics in the ITC and Delaware, identified over 12 patents for AU Optronics to counter-assert in the ITC, multiple United States district courts, China, and Taiwan; shortly after AU Optronics counter-asserted its patents in the United States, the parties settled the dispute with a global patent license agreement
  • (E.D. Tex.) — Lead trial counsel for Dell in a jury trial before Judge Davis in Marshall, Texas, involving multi-display systems for computers; identified a Dell patent to assert as an infringement counterclaim against plaintiff Mass Engineering, and won a trial verdict against the plaintiff for infringing Dell's patent while at the same time convincing the jury to reject the plaintiffs' $64 million damage claim in awarding the plaintiffs only $500,000 against Dell
  • (D. Del.) — Represented plaintiff AU Optronics in accusing defendant LG Philips LCD of infringing eight of AU Optronics' patents relating to LCDs; the case was tried before Judge Farnan, and AU Optronics won a complete victory—all of AU Optronics's asserted patents were found to be valid and infringed by LG Philips LCD
  • (E.D. Tex.) — Represented defendants Learn.Com, Certpoint Systems, Meridian Knowledge Solutions, NetDimensions Ltd, ND Services Inc., emTRAIN, HRsmart, and Perot Systems Corp. in this matter, and presented and negotiated a novel global settlement arrangement with the plaintiff that settled the case against all defendants very early in the litigation, before the defendants had spent any defense fees regarding the litigation itself
  • (E.D. Tex.) — Defended Sierra Monitor and ASI against infringement claims from patent-holding company Fluid Dynamics regarding its patents covering HVAC technology; after moving for dismissal on venue grounds and early negotiations involving prior art, the case was voluntarily dismissed against both defendants by Fluid Dynamics
  • (E.D. Tex.) — Represented defendant BenQ Corporation, which had been accused of infringing patents involving DVD/CD disc discrimination technology, after BenQ had been hit with multiple discovery sanctions; after taking over the representation, BenQ defeated additional motions for sanctions by the plaintiff, patent-holding company Laserdynamics; the case settled during jury trial before Judge Ward
  • (D. Del.) — Represented defendant Palm against infringement claims from patent-holding company Peer-to-Peer Systems regarding its patents covering wireless multiplayer gaming applications; after a successful Markman and partial summary judgment ruling, the case settled at trial

TRO/Preliminary Injunctions

  • (Texas State Court – Travis Cnty.) — Lead trial counsel for a software company specializing in autonomous data capture using drone technology in obtaining TRO against former CEO
  • (W.D. Tex.) — Lead trial counsel defending shipping platform and marketplace, Shipstation, which was accused by Endicia of misappropriation of trade secrets, breach of contract, and other related claims; Endicia sought a TRO, and upon only a few days' notice, we were able to defeat the application for TRO; after expedited discovery, Endicia sought a preliminary injunction through a two-day evidentiary hearing before Judge Yeakel; the court denied entirely the preliminary injunction sought by Endicia, ruling in favor of Shipstation on all four relevant PI factors (i.e., likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, balance of harms, and public interest); the case settled after Shipstation won denial of the requested preliminary injunction

Trade Secrets

  • (California State Court – Alameda Cnty.) – Lead trial counsel for technology firm in a complex trade secrets dispute; obtained favorable settlement shortly before trial, including results that would have otherwise been unavailable through trial
  • (W.D. Tex.) — Lead trial counsel for video and telecommunications company in trade secret lawsuit against a former employee that left to join the client’s direct competitor, resulting in defendant agreeing to cease use of the asserted trade secrets
  • (W.D. Tex.) — Defending Mitek, which is accused by USAA of using and disclosing trade secrets by allegedly incorporating those trade secrets into Mitek's patent applications; secured an early victory from the court by requiring USAA to describe in detail their alleged trade secrets prior to discovery; while other states have adopted this preliminary disclosure requirement for trade secret claims, Texas had not required such detailed disclosure; this was the first court in Texas to do so, based on the briefing we provided
  • (Minn. State Court  – Hennepin Cnty.) — Lead trial counsel for defendant Renew Data and individual employees accused of misappropriating trade secrets and applying for patents that allegedly were owned by Kroll Ontrack, which was the prior employer of the founders of Renew Data; the case settled at trial after a successful deposition of the plaintiff's experts and key admissions that alleged trade secrets were known in the public domain
  • (W.D. Tex.) — Represented individuals and their employer in trade secret claims by Veridian (the former employer of the individual defendants) that software was taken by the individual defendants and used at their current employer; the case settled after Veridian's motion for preliminary injunction was defeated
  • (E.D. Tex.) — Represented Cisco against trade secret claims involving optical cross connect technology for which Alcatel sought over $500 million in damages; defeated all claims on summary judgment just before trial, wherein the court ruled that Alcatel possessed no protectable trade secrets and also that it failed to set forth an appropriate damages claim

Commercial Litigation

  • (E.D. Tex.) — Represented Tekelec in a case in which Tekelec pursued breach of a license agreement; won summary judgment of breach of contract at the district court level; the case was appealed to the Fifth Circuit; which fully affirmed the Eastern District of Texas court's grant of summary judgment in Tekelec's favour; Tekelec was also awarded its attorneys' fees and costs for both the trial court and Fifth Circuit appeal
  • (Michigan State Court – Wayne Cnty.) — Lead trial counsel for all defendants against claims of breach of fiduciary duties, constructive trust, and many other business tort claims made by former partners of the founder of Active Power; the case settled at trial
  • (Tex. Dist. – Hidalgo Cnty.) — Lead trial counsel for telecommunications-equipment-provider Navini Networks against RioPlex's claims of breach of contract, deceptive trade practices, fraud, and other claims regarding Navini's sale, installation, deployment, and provisioning of telecommunications equipment; after successful depositions of the owner and key witnesses of the plaintiffs, the case settled at trial


  • (JAMS Arbitration) – Represented game developer Bungie against severance and employment claims.  Brought successful counterclaims for copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation leading to favorable split award
  • (AAA Arbitration) — Represented software developer Motive, Inc., in claims of breach of a software development agreement, as well as related business tort claims; the case settled during final arbitration hearing
  • (AAA Arbitration) — Represented telecommunications-equipment-provider Navini Networks in an international arbitration against Chinese telecommunications provider Beijing Xinwei; the case settled shortly before the arbitration hearing

Case Citations

  • Insulated Beverage Containers, Components, Labels, and Packaging Thereof
  • Eidos v. AU Optronics, et al.
  • eContact v. Google, et al.
  • Versata v. Planview 
  • Sharp v. AU Optronics 
  • Mass Engineering v. Dell, Inc., et al.
  • AU Optronics v. LG Philips LCD
  • IpLearn, LLC v. Learn.Com, Certpoint Systems, Meridian Knowledge Solutions, NetDimensions Ltd, ND Services Inc., emTRAIN, HRsmart, and Perot Systems Corp. 
  • Fluid Dynamics v. Sierra Monitor, ASI, et al.
  • Laserdynamics v. BenQ Corporation 
  • Peer-to-Peer Systems v. Palm
  • Hangar Technology, Inc. v. Jeffrey Decoux
  • Endicia v. Auctane d/b/a Shipstation
  • USAA v. Mitek
  • Kroll Ontrack v. Renew Data, et al.
  • Veridian Information Solutions, Inc. v. Joel R. Swartz, et al.
  • Alcatel v. Cisco
  • Tekelec v. Verint
  • Magnex Corp, et al. v. Active Power, et al.
  • Rioplex, et al., v. Navini Networks
  • UPS v. Motive, Inc.
  • Navini Networks v. Beijing Xinwei

Contact Details


T +1.512.542.8440
F +1.512.236.3256
2801 Via Fortuna
Suite 100
Austin, TX 78746
Local time: 6:33 AM
Download vCard

Download Biography


Craig's Practices

  • The University of Texas School of Law, J.D., 1995
  • The University of Texas at Austin, B.S., Mechanical Engineering, 1992
  • Admitted to practice: Texas; U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas; U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas; U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Texas; U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit; U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit; U.S. Supreme Court; U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
  • Legal 500 U.S., Venture Capital and Emerging Companies, 2017
  • IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners, Patent Litigation, Texas, 2017
  • Selected to the Texas Super Lawyers list, Super Lawyers (Thomson Reuters), 2008−2012, 2014−2018
  • Member: Austin Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Member: American Intellectual Property Bar
  • Association Member: Federal Bar Association – Austin Chapter
  • Member: Travis County Bar Association