Christy Lea

Partner

Orange County

949-760-0404

Christy.Lea@knobbe.com

Download vCard

Overview

Experience

Recognition

Resources

Christy Lea resolves high-stakes patent and trade secret disputes at both the trial and appellate levels. She has represented clients in the medical device and pharmaceutical industries for nearly two decades. Christy is also an accomplished PTAB trial litigator having served as lead counsel in numerous IPRs.

Notably, Christy co-led the firm’s trial team that won a $70 million jury verdict with $21 million in enhanced damages for CardiAQ in a trade secrets misappropriation case against its former vendor, Neovasc Inc. The National Law Journal ranked this verdict as #6 for IP and #21 overall for verdicts that year. The court also granted CardiAQ co-founders Arshad Quadri, M.D. and Brent Ratz co-inventorship of the Neovasc transcatheter mitral valve patent. The decision made Edwards Lifesciences, which acquired CardiAQ for $400 million, co-owner of the Neovasc patent. Christy continues to represent Edwards Lifesciences in district court and before the PTAB. In addition, Christy represented and currently represents Smith & Nephew in numerous litigations and PTAB trials, including in the “negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT) wars” against KCI/Wake Forest, as well as various orthopedics cases.

A formidable advocate both in and out of court, Christy is able to explain even the most sophisticated technologies to judges and juries alike, converting complex information into easily-understood straight-talk. She offers particular skill in working with, positioning, and maximizing fact and expert witnesses in critical patent litigation with hundreds of millions of dollars on the line. Hard-working, ingratiating, persuasive, and always prepared, Christy takes a personal interest in the individuals with whom she works and represents.

Named a "Life Science Star" by Legal Media Group (LMG) Life Sciences, a "Woman to Watch" by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA), a “Top 10 Life Sciences Litigator” by Managing IP magazine, and a Super Lawyers magazine Southern California “Rising Star” in intellectual property law, Christy believes in service beyond the office. An avid fundraiser for various charities, Christy is also President of the Board of Directors for the Orange County Public Law Center and the Advisory Board for the Ole Miss School of Engineering, as well as a founding member of the firm’s Pro Bono and Diversity Committees.

Clerk Experience

Honorable Jan Patterson, Justice of the Texas Third Court of Appeals, Intern Fall 1999

Education

University of Texas School of Law (J.D., 2000), Raul F. Escandon Scholarship, Dean's Achievement Award, Graduated with Honors

University of Mississippi (B.S. Chemical Engineering, 1997), Tau Beta Pi Engineering Honor Society, NASA Space Grant Scholar, Co-op Environmental Engineer for Vista Chemical Company

University of Texas School of Law

University of Mississippi

State Bar of California

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

U.S. District Court - Central District of California

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Medical Devices & Procedures

Pharmaceuticals

Practice Areas

Appellate Litigation

Hatch-Waxman Litigation

Medical Device Litigation

Patent Office Litigation

Edwards Lifesciences v. Abbott Laboratories (C.D. Cal. 2020)

Represented Edwards Lifesciences in asserting three patents against Abbott’s transcatheter mitral clipping device (MitraClip) for repairing the mitral heart valve. The parties ultimately reached a global settlement of this worldwide dispute.

Boston Scientific v. Edwards Lifesciences (C.D. Cal. 2019)

Defended Edwards Lifesciences in patent case involving eight patents asserted against delivery systems and crimpers used for implanting Edwards’ transcatheter heart valves. After filing IPR petitions against the patents, the Court stayed the case pending the final disposition of all IPRs, and the parties ultimately reached a settlement of their global dispute.

Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. ConforMIS, Inc., IPR2016-01874 (Pat. Trial & Appeal Bd. 2018)

Lead counsel for Smith & Nephew in inter partes review (IPR) trial before the PTAB, in which we successfully obtained a final written decision of unpatentability of all the challenged claims in ConforMIS' foundational patent involving patient-specific instruments for knee replacement surgery.

CardiAQ Valve Technologies v. Neovasc (Fed. Circ. 2017)

Successfully defended appeal of $112M judgment in trade secret misappropriation case.

CardiAQ Valve Technologies v. Neovasc (D. Mass. 2016), aff’d (Fed. Cir. 2017)

In jury trial, represented CardiAQ in trade secret misappropriation case relating to the first transcatheter mitral valve replacement (“TMVI” or “TMVR”) device to be placed in a human. The jury found that Neovasc misappropriated CardiAQ’s trade secrets and awarded CardiAQ $70 million. The district court enhanced damages by $21 million and awarded prejudgment interest, which increased the final judgment to over $110 million. The National Law Journal listed this case as the Number 6 IP and Number 21 overall verdict of 2016.

iCeutica Pty Ltd. and Iroko Pharmaceuticals, LLC v. Lupin Ltd. and Lupin Pharmaceuticals, Inc., Case No. 14-cv-01515 (2017).

Represented the Lupin defendants in a patent infringement action in the District of Delaware on patents relating to diclofenac acid (the active ingredient in Iroko’s Zorvolex® product). Achieved favorable case-dispositive settlement for client.

Tried trade secret misappropriation case relating to medical device technology, resulting in $70M jury verdict. Plaintiff designed transcatheter mitral valve replacement device that was first ever to be placed in humans. Plaintiff hired Defendant to help assemble prototypes under an NDA. Defendant's lead engineer began designing a directly competing device while working on Plaintiff's prototypes, but decided not to tell Plaintiff as their relationship continued for six more months, during which Plaintiff shared numerous confidential designs. The court found Defendant's misappropriation willful and further awarded Plaintiff $21M in enhanced damages, and over $20M in interest for a total judgment of $112M. In September 2017, the judgment was affirmed entirely, and has since been satisfied.

Smith & Nephew, Inc. v. Rea & Synthes (U.S.A.) (Fed. Cir. 2013).

Successfully represented Smith & Nephew before the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a case involving reexamination of a patent relating to orthopedic bone plates. In a precedential opinion, the Court ruled that a patent owned by Smith & Nephew competitor, Synthes (U.S.A.), on an orthopedic bone plate is invalid. The Federal Circuit’s opinion reversed an earlier decision by the Patent Office, which had upheld many of the patent claims.

GlaxoSmithKline v. Anchen Pharmaceuticals et al., Case No. 11-046 (RGA) (MPT) (2011).

Represented the Anchen defendants in patent infringement action in the District of Delaware on a patent relating to pharmaceutical compositions of dutasteride (the active ingredient in GSK’s Avodart® product) and a combination of dutasteride and tamsulosin (the active ingredients in GSK's Jalyn® product). Achieved favorable case-dispositive settlement for client.

Lupin Atlantis Holdings S.A. v. Ranbaxy Labs. Ltd. et al., 2:11-cv-03851 (2011).

Represented defendants in patent infringement action in the Southern District of New York on two patents relating to pharmaceutical compositions of fenofibrate (the active ingredient in Lupin’s Antara® product). Achieved favorable case-dispositive settlement for client.

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (W.D Tex. 2010). Scored major patent litigation victory for Smith & Nephew in a case involving patents relating to negative pressure wound therapy (NPWT). In a 37-page ruling, Judge Furgeson granted JMOL of invalidity due to obviousness based on the many early uses of NPWT Smith & Nephew presented at an earlier jury trial.

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc. (W.D Tex. 2009).

Successfully represented Smith & Nephew in opposing motion for preliminary injunction based on alleged infringement of patents relating to negative pressure wound therapy.

Roche Palo Alto LLC v. Ranbaxy Labs., 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 90804 (D.N.J. 2009).

Successfully represented Ranbaxy in obtaining district court judgment that patent relating to valganciclovir hydrochloride is not infringed.

Kinetic Concepts, Inc. v. BlueSky Medical Group, Inc. 554 F.3d 1010 (Fed. Cir. 2009).

Successfully represented BlueSky in upholding jury verdict that gauze-based system for negative pressure wound therapy does not infringe patents.

Successfully represented Smith & Nephew in moving to transfer this patent infringement action out of the Eastern District of Texas.

Applied Medical Resources Corp. v. United States Surgical Corp, 2006 WL 163187 (Fed. Cir. 2006).

Successfully represented Applied Medical in upholding jury verdict of $43.5 million and finding that Tyco-Unit U.S. Surgical had willfully infringed patent and district court’s enhancement and entry of the $64.5 million judgment.

Successfully represented Beckman in upholding district court judgment that patent relating to electrophoresis is invalid as a matter of law for obviousness.

Koepnick Medical & Educ. Research Found., L.L.C. v. Alcon Labs., Inc., 347 F. Supp. 2d 731 (D. Ariz. 2004).

Obtained favorable claim construction and summary judgment of non-infringement for Bausch & Lomb, Inc. in patent litigation involving LASIK eye surgery. Decision affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

Awards & Honors

Christy has received multiple awards for her legal accomplishments:

Recognized in the Orange County Business Journal Women in Business Awards (2023)
Recognized as a "World IP Leader" by World Intellectual Property Review (WIPR) (2023)
Named an "Inspirational Woman" by the Los Angeles Times (2023)
Named a “Leading Litigator – IP Litigation” in the 2023-2024 edition of Lawdragon’s “500 Leading Litigators in America” guide
Recognized as a Patent Star in Managing IP's "IP STARS" guide for her outstanding intellectual property legal work (2018-2023)
Named the 2021 "Attorney of the Year" by the Orange County Women Lawyers Association (OCWLA) for her outstanding role in the legal community and proven commitment to advancing women in the legal profession, as well as women's issues generally.
Named a "Future Star" and "Local Litigation Star" in the Benchmark Litigation 2021-2020 and 2023 California Guide
Named a "Top IP Lawyer" in 2020 and 2019 by the Daily Journal
Recognized by The PTAB Bar Association as one of the "Top 50 Women in PTAB Trials" in 2019
Named by The Legal 500 for Patent Litigation in 2019
Named a "Life Science Star" by Legal Media Group (LMG) Life Sciences for Patent Litigation and Hatch-Waxman Litigation (2012-2018 and 2022-2023)
Recognized as a "Woman to Watch" by the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) Women in IP Committee for her professional accomplishments, leadership in diversity, and the empowerment of women (2017)
Named as one of the Top 10 Life Sciences Litigators in the United States by Managing IP magazine (2012)
Named as one of Southern California’s “Rising Stars” in intellectual property law in a survey of her peers, published in Los Angeles magazine and Super Lawyers magazine (2006)
Featured in the Los Angeles Daily Journal (2005)

Articles

Ted Cannon, Christy Lea, Kerry Taylor, Michelle Armond, "Supreme Court Issues Two Important Decisions Affecting Inter Partes Review Patent Challenges," Knobbe Martens Firm Alert, April 2018

Joseph S. Cianfrani and Christy G. Lea, Federal Circuit Clarifies the Methodology for Performing Claim Construction, August 2005.

Speeches & Seminars

Panelist, USC Gould School of Law Intellectual Property Institute, Los Angeles, March 2015

Christy Lea & Rabinder Narula, Obviousness: 5 Years Post-KSR, Bay Area In-House Medtech Attorney Group (BAIMA), May 18, 2012.

Christy Lea, David Cavanaugh, Douglas Portnow, & Michael Bednarek, Obviousness: 5 Years Post-KSR, ACI Advanced Summit on Medical Device Patents, February 28, 2012.

Medical Device Blog

Conformis Continues Litigations Against Patient-Specific Medical Technologies