Christopher J.Harnett (Chris)

Partner

(T) + 1.212.326.3454

Chris Harnett has been trying intellectual property cases for more than 25 years. He has been lead counsel in dozens of litigations and has appeared in more than 30 district courts around the country. In the course of his career, Chris has prevailed for both plaintiffs and defendants at the pleading stage, during preliminary injunction proceedings, on summary judgment, after bench and jury trials, and on appeal. He has successfully tried patent infringement and trade secret cases involving a wide range of technologies, including pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices, computer systems, and consumer products.

Clients turn to Chris for clear, dynamic, and persuasive presentation — both in the courtroom and in briefing. 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 beginning of a case to develop an efficient strategy that furthers their business and litigation objectives. He was recently listed in the Intellectual Asset Manager (IAM), where clients comments included that he is "unbelievably smart and diligent, and his sensible, balanced approach gives him lots of credibility with the courts."

Chris frequently speaks and writes on patent infringement and other IP-related topics.

Experience

  • Celgene successfully blocks PTAB institution of IPR involving REVLIMID®Jones Day represented Celgene Corporation in successfully blocking institution of inter partes review ("IPR") of a patent covering the use of Celgene's REVLIMID® brand drug to treat multiple myeloma.
  • Celgene successfully blocks institution of inter partes review on three patents listed in the Orange Book for its blockbuster REVLIMID® productJones Day represented Celgene Corporation in successfully blocking institution of inter partes review ("IPR") of three patents covering the use of Celgene's REVLIMID® brand drug to treat myelodysplastic syndrome (“MDS”).
  • Celgene asserts its REVLIMID® patents against Apotex Inc. under Hatch-Waxman ActJones Day is representing Celgene Corporation as a plaintiff to enforce its patents against Apotex Inc. in a Hatch-Waxman litigation matter involving Apotex’s proposed generic versions of REVLIMID®, which is prescribed for treating multiple myeloma and other cancers.
  • Celgene asserts its REVLIMID® patents against Sun Pharma under Hatch-Waxman ActJones Day is representing Celgene Corporation as a plaintiff to enforce its patents against Sun Pharma Global FZE, Sun Pharma Global Inc., Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc., and Sun Pharmaceutical Industries Limited in a Hatch-Waxman litigation matter involving Sun’s proposed generic versions of REVLIMID®, which is prescribed for treating multiple myeloma and other cancers.
  • Celgene enforces its REVLIMID® patents against Lotus Pharmaceutical under Hatch-Waxman ActJones Day is representing Celgene Corporation as a plaintiff to enforce its patents against Lotus Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. in Hatch-Waxman litigations involving proposed generic versions of REVLIMID®, which is prescribed for treating multiple myeloma and other cancers.
  • Celgene asserts its REVLIMID® patents against Cipla under Hatch-Waxman ActJones Day is representing Celgene Corporation as a plaintiff to enforce its patents against Cipla Limited in Hatch-Waxman litigation matters involving Cipla’s proposed generic versions of REVLIMID®, which is prescribed for treating multiple myeloma and other cancers.
  • Celgene successfully blocks Apotex's bid for inter partes review of REVLIMID® patentJones Day represented Celgene Corporation in successfully blocking institution of an inter partes review (IPR) petition filed by Apotex against U.S. Patent No. 8,741,929, which is listed in the Orange Book for Celgene's REVLIMID® brand drug.
  • Purdue Pharma successfully moves for additional discovery regarding real-party-in-interest, leading to termination of IPRs before institutionJones Day defended patent owner, Purdue Pharma L.P., in connection with two inter partes review (IPR) petitions brought by the petitioner, Kashiv Pharma, LLC, against U.S. Patent Nos. 9,492,392 and 9,492,393.
  • Celgene asserts its REVLIMID® patents against Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories under Hatch-Waxman ActJones Day is representing Celgene Corporation as a plaintiff to enforce its patents against Dr. Reddy's Laboratories in several Hatch-Waxman litigation matters involving DRL's proposed generic versions of REVLIMID®, which is prescribed for treating multiple myeloma and other cancers.
  • Celgene prevails in Apotex and Cipla IPR challenges of Abraxane® patentsJones Day served as lead counsel and successfully defended Celgene Corporation in connection with six inter partes review (IPR) petitions filed by Apotex or Cipla against U.S. Patent Nos. 8,138,229, 7,820,788, and 7,923,536, which are related to formulations for Celgene's chemotherapeutic drug marketed as Abraxane®.
  • Celgene enforces its Revlimid® patents against Zydus Pharmaceuticals under Hatch-Waxman ActJones Day is representing Celgene Corporation in a patent litigation against Zydus Pharmaceuticals and Cadila Healthcare over Revlimid®, Celgene's blockbuster drug for treating multiple myeloma and other cancers.
  • Purdue Pharma defends against claims of patent infringementJones Day represents Purdue Pharma L.P., The P.F. Laboratories, Inc., and Purdue Pharmaceuticals L.P. in a patent infringement litigation brought by plaintiff Depomed, Inc., based on Purdue's manufacture and sale of its own patented controlled-release OxyContin(R) pain relief medication.
  • The following represents experience acquired prior to joining Jones Day.

    Antares Pharma, Inc. v. Medac Pharma, Inc. (D. Del.). In a case that involved 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 that involved 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 noninfringement 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.) and 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.). Successfully 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 noninfringement and equitable estoppel, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

    We use cookies to deliver our online services. Details of the cookies and other tracking technologies we use and instructions on how to disable them are set out in our Cookies Policy. By using this website you consent to our use of cookies.