Overview
Christopher Lewis helps clients enhance the value of their IP portfolio via strategic counseling with a focus on patent prosecution, including patent portfolio management and development, licensing, and due diligence. Christopher represents clients that range from individual inventors to startups (at various stages of the startup process) to large multinational corporations.
Christopher frequently works directly with business leaders and non-legal professionals to understand the technology, develop and implement IP strategy, and analyze and manage associated risks and concerns.
Utilizing his background in electrical engineering and mathematics, Christopher offers experience in electronic hardware including vehicle hardware, medical device hardware, and robotic hardware such as bipedal and quadrupedal robots. Christopher further offers experience in software including artificial intelligence, big data analytics, blockchain, fintech, social media, and autonomous vehicle technologies.
Prior to law school, Christopher developed this background via his work at a nuclear power plant and his thesis work that focused on implementation of hardware and software for a robotic elephant trunk. Christopher continues to develop this background via various conferences including international robotics conferences.
Education
- Clemson University (B.S. Electrical Engineering, 2016), General Honors, Departmental Honors, Cum Laude
- Wake Forest University School of Law (J.D., 2019), Cum Laude
Recognition
Awards & Honors
- Recognized as a “Washington D.C. Super Lawyer” by Super Lawyers magazine for his intellectual property litigation practice (2023-2025)
News & Insights
Articles
Author, “From The Triple Option to the Hurry-Up No-Huddle: How Name, Image, and Likeness Policies Are Changing the Game for Universities,” The Trademark Lawyer Magazine (Issue 5, 2021)
Comment: How the Actions of Kyle Bass Have Forced the USPTO to Expand the Duty of Candor and Good Faith (19 Wake Forest J. Bus. & Intell. Prop. L. 11)
Litigation Blog
- Judicial Review: The PTAB Must Offer Reasonably Discernible Logic
- Medtronic Completes Acquisition of Cardiac Mapping Company Affera
- Somebody’s Wrong: PTAB Must Resolve Conflicting Factual Testimony During IPR
- No Standing for Second Bite at the Apple
- Corresponding Structure Snafu: Lack of Algorithm Renders Claims Indefinite
- Claims to Printed Matter Are Patent-Ineligible Only if They Lack an Inventive Concept
- Preliminary Injunction Denied Because of Failure to Draft Precise Terms That Capture the Intent of the Parties
- The Disclosure-Dedication Doctrine Applies Even When Disclosure Relates to a Different, Unclaimed Embodiment
- Claims Including Computer Speed and Efficiency Improvements May Still Be Ineligible Under Section 101
Medical Device Blog
- Venture Capitalist Funding in Medtech Increasing
- Pfizer Australia Announces Deal to Acquire ResApp Health
- Bioventus’ Shareholders Approve Acquisition of Misonix
- Balancing Intellectual Property (IP) Interests With National Interest in Response to the Coronavirus
- Supreme Court Upholds, but Limits, Patent Infringement Defense of “Assignor Estoppel”
