Christopher J. Harnett
Partner
An experienced trial lawyer with courtroom experience before juries and in bench proceedings, Chris has established an impressive track record of obtaining outstanding results for the firm’s clients in patent infringement and trade secret litigations for more than 20 years. His legal acumen and scientific background -- his education and industry experience are in molecular biology -- combine to enable him to focus on clients’ technical issues and craft a legal strategy to best serve their needs. Chris has tried numerous cases involving a wide range of technologies, including pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices, electronics, industrial machinery and consumer products. Clients turn to Chris for clear, dynamic and persuasive courtroom presentation in jury trials, bench trials and appellate proceedings. Chris has a breadth of experience that allows him to work with clients from the very beginning of a case to develop an efficient strategy that furthers their business and litigation objectives.
Experience
- Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc., Civil Action no. 00-CV-10783-WGY (D. Mass): After a three-week jury trial, MEEI won a verdict of unjust enrichment and unfair trade practices involving patents directed to a surgical method for treating age-related macular degeneration with a damages award exceeding $130 million, which was affirmed by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit.
- Advanced Technology Materials, Inc. v. Praxair, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.) 2005; Praxair, Inc. v. Advanced Technology Materials, Inc., (D. Del.) 2005: In co-pending actions brought by competitors that provide systems for controlled release of industrial gasses, Praxair won summary judgment that ATMI’s asserted patents were obvious (which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit). Praxair won a jury trial on the issues of infringement and validity, and ultimately, the matter settled favorably to Praxair following the Federal Circuit’s ruling that two of Praxair’s patents were valid and enforceable.
- Fisher-Rosemount Systems Inc. v. Control Systems International, Inc., Civil Action No. H-05-2125 (S.D. Tex.): In a case involving cross-claims between two parties that provide automated control systems for industrial processes, Fisher-Rosemount defeated CSI’s $650 million damages claim by winning summary judgment of non-infringement and invalidity; Fisher-Rosemount also won summary judgment that CSI infringed its asserted patent claims.
- AstraZeneca LP et al. v. Apotex, Inc., Civil Action No. 09-1518 (RMB) (AMD) (D.N.J.): After a six-day trial, the Court issued a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction, preventing Apotex from entering the market with its generic version of AstraZeneca’s pediatric asthma drug, PULMICORT RESPULES.
- Cancer Research Tech. Ltd. & Schering Corp. v. Barr Labs, Inc., Civil Action No. 07-457 (SLR) (D. Del.): After a seven-day ANDA trial involving the patent covering TEMODAR®, which is the leading chemotherapy drug used in the treatment of glioma (a type of brain cancer), the District Court prevented the generic from entering the market pending appeal and the Federal Circuit confirmed the enforceability of the patent-in-suit.
- Neles-Jamesbury, Inc. v. Fisher Controls, Inc., (D. Mass) 1999: After a three-week jury trial, Fisher won a verdict that its accused noise-attenuating valves did not infringe the asserted patent, which the Federal Circuit affirmed.
- Forest Laboratories, Inc. and ONY, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories and Tokyo Tanabe Co. Ltd., (W.D.N.Y.) 1998: After a three and one-half month jury trial concerning Forest’s drug Infasurf®, which is used to treat Respiratory Distress Syndrome in premature infants, Forest won a summary of non-infringement and equitable estoppel which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Awards
- The Best Lawyers in America (2009-2013)
- New York Super Lawyers (2006-2011)
- Lawdragon 500 “New Stars, New Worlds“
Insights
Publications
- Co-author, “The EU Unitary Patent and Unified Patent Court: Simplicity and Standardization, Challenge, and Opportunity,” Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal (April 2013 issue)
- “Star Scientific, Larson, Ariad and Exergen: On The Road Back to Burlington,” Proceedings of the 2009 AIPLA Annual Meeting
- “Court Takes Limited View of Broad Biotech Claims,” The National Law Journal (July 2001)
- “Defending Against an Infringement Claim,” Modern Drug Discovery (July 2001)
- “The Human Genome Project and the Downside of Technology Transfer,” Risk - Issues In Health & Safety (Spring 1994)
- “Federal Technology Transfer: Should We Build Subarus in Bethesda,” Risk - Issues In Health and Safety (Fall 1990)