Attorneys
Claudia Wilson Frost
Claudia Wilson Frost is a nationally recognized trial lawyer, appellate advocate and strategist, with four decades of experience in complex commercial litigation, including patent, copyright and trade secrets litigation. She has tried over 40 cases to conclusion and argued a like number of appeals in state and federal courts in Texas and around the country.
Claudia has been lead or co-lead counsel in over 50 patent infringement cases in courts throughout the country, and her patent experience includes cross-border patent litigation, SEP and FRAND disputes and Section 337 proceedings in the ITC as well as numerous Markman hearings and jury trials in Texas, Delaware, and California. While much of her litigation experience is at the intersection of tech and energy, Claudia has handled cases in other sectors including financial services, telecommunications, information technology, automotive, and retail sectors.
Education
- The University of Texas at Austin (B.A.)
- University of Houston Law Center (Editor in Chief, Houston Law Review)
Bar Admissions
- Federal courts: U.S. Supreme Court, Fifth Circuit, Federal Circuit, and all federal district courts in Texas
- State courts: Texas
Illustrative representations include
Energy Litigation
- Lead counsel in dozens of oil and gas cases in the upstream and downstream segments, including ownership disputes, royalty disputes, alleged breaches of implied covenants, subsurface trespass issues, preferential rights and AMI disputes, and antitrust and qui tam cases.
- Lead counsel for power generators in disputes over renewable energy projects ranging from disputes with landowners to claims arising from power interruptions during significant weather events.
Intellectual Property Litigation
- Lead counsel in patent infringement cases in the upstream and downstream segments of the energy sector, including competitor cases and cross border litigation involving numerous jurisdictions.
- Lead counsel in patent infringement cases in the telecommunications and wireless technology sector, including dozens of cases for network providers, semiconductor manufacturers, device designers and implementers.
- Lead counsel in patent infringement cases in the financial services sector, including cases involving fintech such as portfolio balancing, remote wallets and payments, encryption, and Check21 technology.
- Lead counsel in trade secrets and breach of confidentiality and non-compete/non-solicitation cases in energy, manufacturing, and medical device industries.
- Lead counsel in copyright cases, including pirated software under the DMCA, process management software, and architectural copyright.
Securities and Financial Litigation
- Lead counsel in numerous financial industry disputes, including complex lender liability cases, RICO cases, securities and commodities cases, and breach of fiduciary duty cases.
- Lead counsel in numerous ERISA class actions and individual cases in various industries, arising from activities including pension plan spin offs, and involving claims for breaches of fiduciary duty, mismanagement, misrepresentation, and statutory violations.
Appellate Work
- Argued landmark cases on appeal in state and federal courts involving issues including punitive damages, automotive products liability, subsurface trespass and groundwater issues, ERISA preemption, oil and gas implied covenants, patent infringement, and authority of the ITC to exclude downstream products of non-parties under Section 337 of the Tariff Act (argued for certain network providers and handset manufacturer.
Selected Decisions
ITC Power Limited
- Kyocera Wireless Corp. v. Int’! Trade Comm’n, 545 F.3d 1340 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (landmark decision significantly limiting ITC’s ability to exclude downstream products upon finding of patent infringement) (argued for Cingular Wireless, T-Mobile and BlackBerry)
Patent Damages Clarified
- Summit 6 LLC v. Research In Motion Corp. et al., case number 3:11-cv-00367 in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas (co-counsel for Samsung) (responsible for inter alia damages portion of patent infringement case at trial and post-trial), affirmed, 802 F.3d 1283 (Fed. Cir. 2015) (affirming in face of strong opposition and constitutional challenge, that a lump-sum payment can compensate for both past and future infringement (through the patent’s life), potentially precluding future royalty claims.)
Subsurface Trespass and Consent Burden Established
- FPL Farming Ltd. v. Environmental Processing Systems, L.C., 305 S.W.3d 739 (Tex App. — Beaumont 2009), (affirming trial court decision for defendant) (retained by plaintiff FPL as counsel for further appeals)); reversed and remanded, 351 S.W. 3d 306 (Tex. 2011), holding that the mere possession of a TCEQ permit does not provide immunity from civil liability; on remand, Court of Appeals held that deep subsurface wastewater migration can constitute an actionable trespass because FPL had an economic interest in protecting its deep subsurface aquifer from EPS’ disposal wastewater, FPL Farming Ltd. v. Envtl Processing Sys LC., 383 S.W. 3d 274 (Tex App. — Beaumont 2012). The Court of Appeals further held that the trial court erred in placing the burden on FPL to prove that EPS entered onto FPL’s property without consent. Id. at 284. The Texas Supreme Court granted Environmental Processing System’s petition for review, and after second argument of the case in the Court abrogated a long line of Texas cases, holding that the burden to prove lack of consent in a trespass case rested with the plaintiff, party claiming trespass, 57 S.W.3d 414 (Tex. 2015), because plaintiff had submitted case to jury under existing law, Texas Supreme Court reversed and rendered judgment for EPS, FPL’s motion for rehearing seeking remand in interest of justice due to change in law was denied.
Clarifying Economic Loss Rule
- Equistar v. Dresser Rand 240 S.W.3d 864 (Tex. 2010), reversed and remanded Court of Appeals decision, clarifying Texas law on preserving error for the economic loss rule and the statute of limitations under Texas law.
Rule of Capture: Horizontal Drilling and Royalties
- Browning Oil Co. v. Luecke, 38 S.W.3d 625 (Tex. App. 2000), establishing how royalties are allocated from commingled production and the impact of lease anti-dilution clauses, holding that royalties should be based on the productive length of the wellbore within a tract, not the entire well, and that anti-dilution clauses must be strictly followed, potentially invalidating pooled units if breached and providing guidance in horizontal drilling, impacting how operators form units and compensate royalty owners.