Christopher Bruno Image

Christopher Bruno

Partner

McDermott, Will & Emery

Christoper Bruno is Partner in the Washington, DC office of McDermott, Will & Emery, where his practice focuses on intellectual property litigation matters, primarily those involving life sciences patents. Chris’s patent caseload has included complex litigation involving pharmaceutical, immunology, medical device, agritech and computing systems technology in federal district courts, the International Trade Commission (ITC), the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the US Supreme Court. Chris was one of the first attorneys to litigate novel issues of statutory construction of the Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act.

In the area of pharmaceuticals, Chris has experience at every stage of litigation representing both plaintiffs and defendants in small-molecule and biologics patent infringement actions related to antibiotics, overactive bladder solid oral dosage forms, gastrointestinal disease treatments, cancer-treatment drugs, sleep aid medications, topical psoriasis lotions, and fungal infection ointments in federal district court, including Arazlo®, Bryhali®, Cubicin®, Doribax®,Duobrii®, Gemzar®, Glumetza®, Hetlioz®, Jublia®, Lunesta®, Myrbetriq®, Reclast®, Remicade®, Sensipar®, Tecfidera®, Topicort®, Uceris®, Xifaxan®, and Zometa®. Chris also applies his experience with pharmaceutical companies to advance novel litigation strategies in FDA regulatory actions, including citizen’s petitions, and in counseling on patent prosecution strategy.

In the area of computing systems, Chris has experience representing defendants in technical and non-technical aspects of litigation. As one example, representing a large retail restaurant chain as the lead defendant in a large defense group, Chris was just weeks away from what would have been one of the first trials in the ever-evolving area of Section 101 invalidity. Leveraging an ability to translate complicated subject matter for judges and juries, Chris has had success handling cases with nascent technologies.

Chris also has significant experience in trademark infringement litigation representing both plaintiffs and defendants. He has counselled numerous entities, including non-profits, regarding competitors’ infringement and has worked towards alternative solutions, including favorable settlements. In one case, representing the defendant, Chris was part of a team that obtained a denial of preliminary injunction by the plaintiff that ultimately resolved the case favorably in Chris’s client’s favor.

Chris also serves as a mentor to numerous intellectual property group associates and as an assignment coordinator and mentor for IP summer associates.

Chris served as law clerk to the Hon. Todd M. Hughes for the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, and the Hon. Gail J. Standish for the US District Court for the Central District of California.

Recent Articles by Christopher Bruno

Five Patent Law Lessons Learned in 2018

As we look ahead towards 2019, it is worth reflecting on several high-profile patent cases and brewing developments from the past year. Here are five lessons we learned from 2018 that may be useful in developing IP litigation strategies in 2019.

Aqua Products: Is It Helping Patent Owners Swim Better Nine Months Later?

At the time, many thought this change in law would significantly assist patentees in avoiding full-blown cancellation of their claims. However, our review suggests a case-by-case analysis without overwhelming success on a motion to amend… Although the industry expected Aqua Products to cause a sea change for motions to amend, there has been little, if any, substantive effect. Since Aqua Products, the Board has considered the opinion’s impact in 92 cases, referring to the memorandum guidance in 38. Of those 92 cases, the Board has rendered decisions in 43 cases, denying 32 motions to amend, granting in whole or in part 7 motions, and denying as moot 4 motions.

Six Predictions for the 2018 Patent Environment

For patent practitioners, this year packed in a lot of activity: Fractured Federal Circuit en banc decisions resolving who bears the burden of proof on motions to amend in an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding and wading into the Apple-Samsung wars, and U.S. Supreme Court decisions on patent exhaustion, design patent damages, the fairly untested Biologics Price Competition and Innovation Act (BPCIA), and venue. And there’s still more coming, with outstanding opinions from the Federal Circuit on the reviewability of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s (PTAB) time bar decisions and from the Supreme Court on the constitutionality of IPRs and the PTAB’s authority to institute proceedings partially. Coming off such a blockbuster year, what comes next? Here are six predictions.

Past Events with Christopher Bruno

Life Sciences Masters™ 2024

October 28 - 30, 2024