Christopher J. Harnett


  • JD, cum laude, Georgetown University Law Center, 1990
  • MA (Cellular Biology, Molecular Biology), American University, 1986; Graduate Teaching Fellow, Department of Biological Sciences, The American University, 1984-86
  • BA (English, Biology, with Distinction), Binghamton University, State University of New York, 1984


  • New York
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Court Admissions

  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York
  • Association of the Bar of the City of New York
  • American Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Federal Circuit Bar Association
  • New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association
  • New York Intellectual Property Law Association
  • IAM Patent 1000: The World's Leading Patent Practitioners (2014-2016)
  • The Best Lawyers in America (2009-2014, 2016-2017)
  • Who's Who Legal (2016)
  • New York Super Lawyers (2006-2016)
  • Lawdragon 500 “New Stars, New Worlds”

Christopher J. Harnett


Chris is an experienced lead trial lawyer with more than 20 trials over his legal career. Chris has appeared in at least 30 U.S. District Courts and established an impressive track record of obtaining outstanding results for the firm’s clients in patent infringement and trade secret litigations involving a wide range of technologies, including software, computer systems, remote monitoring of devices over wireless communication networks, biotechnology, semiconductor manufacturing, pharmaceuticals, industrial control valves, medical devices and consumer products.

Clients turn to Chris for clear, dynamic and persuasive courtroom presentation in jury trials, bench trials and appellate proceedings. Clients have reported to IAM that Mr. Harnett “is unbelievably smart and diligent, and his sensible, balanced approach gives him lots of credibility with the courts.” His legal acumen and scientific background combine to enable him to focus on clients’ technical issues and craft a legal strategy to best serve their needs. 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.


  • Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma, Inc. (D. Del.): In a case involving methotrexate injector devices for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, Medac defeated Antares’s motion for preliminary injunction based on the District Court’s determination that Medac had shown a likelihood of success on its merits. On appeal, the Federal Circuit, in a precedential opinion, went even further and invalidated the asserted patent for failure to comply with the “original patent” requirement of 35 U.S.C. § 251. LMG recognized this litigation as the “Patent Impact Case of the Year”.
  • Fisher-Rosemount Systems Inc. v. Control Systems International, Inc. (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.
  • Advanced Technology Materials, Inc. v. Praxair, Inc., (S.D.N.Y.); Praxair, Inc. v. Advanced Technology Materials, Inc., (D. Del.): 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.
  • Massachusetts Eye and Ear Infirmary v. QLT Phototherapeutics, Inc. (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.
  • Neles-Jamesbury, Inc. v. Fisher Controls, Inc., (D. Mass.): 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.
  • Millennium, L.P. et al. v. EMC Corporation (D.N.J.): Successful settled a patent infringement action on behalf of EMC Corporation, relating to electronic document processing systems.
  • Triple Point Technology v. Sapient Corp. (Del. Ch. Ct.): Represented Sapient in a trade secret case concerning software systems used by the financial services industry.
  • AstraZeneca LP et al. v. Apotex, Inc., (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., (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.
  • Forest Laboratories, Inc. and ONY, Inc. v. Abbott Laboratories and Tokyo Tanabe Co. Ltd., (W.D.N.Y.): 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.


  • Mentioned, “Pharmaceutical injection device claims added to reissue patent failed to meet “original patent” requirement,” Intellectual Property Law Daily (November 17, 2014)
  • Mentioned, “Original-Patent Rule Dooms Drug Injection Complaint,” Law360 (November 17, 2014)
  • Mentioned, “Appeals court won't stop Medac from selling injectable drug,” Reuters Legal (November 17, 2014)
  • “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)


  • Presenter, Recent Issues and Trends in IP Disputes in the U.S. and Korea, “Current Trends Impacting Non-Practicing Entities,” Seoul, Korea (May 12, 2016) 
  • Panelist, American Conference Institute’s Paragraph IV Disputes Conference, “Risky Business: Examining New Guidance for Calculating Damages in the Aftermath of an At-Risk Launch,” New York (April 25, 2016)
  • Moderator, ACI Paragraph IV Disputes Conference, “Assessing the True Measure of Damages in At-Risk Launch Scenario,” New York (April 28, 2015)
  • Presenter, WIPA and KPAA seminar, “Landscape of a U.S. Patent Trial” and “Survey of the 2014-2015 Supreme Court Patent Decisions,” Seoul, Korea (April 2, 2015)
  • Panelist, C5 Freedom to Operate, Understanding the Damages Regime to Categorize and Respond to FTO Risks, Munich, Germany (May 18-19, 2011)
  • Faculty ALI/ABA Trial Of A Patent Case -- New York (October 2010); Chicago (October 2011); New York (May 2013)
  • Panelist, AIPLA Annual Meeting, Inequitable Conduct - Can An Intent To Deceive Be Inferred. “Star Scientific, Larson, Ariad and Exergen: On The Road Back to Burlington” (October 15, 2009)
  • Panelist, NYIPLA Fall CLE Program, Patent Litigation Workshop with Hon. Jed S. Rakoff, U.S. District Judge (S.D.N.Y.) (November 22, 2002)
  • Panelist, American Conference Institute: Legal Strategies for Maximizing Pharmaceutical Patent Life Cycles (May 15-16, 2002), “Developing A Coherent Claim Construction Strategy” Panelist, CLE International, Intellectual Property Issues In Biotechnology Law, “Tactics For Using Experts In Biotechnology Litigation” (January 29-30, 2001)
  • Panelist, Franklin Pierce Law Center/Department of Energy Conference on Maximizing the Return from the Human Genome Project (July 23-24, 1993)