Christopher L. North Ph.D.
BIPC Logo

Christopher L. North Ph.D.

Of Counsel

Alexandria, VA
 
 
 
  • Representative Experience
    • Tate & Lyle Americas LLC v. Cargill Incorporated, Case No. IPR2014-00084, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Monsanto Technology LLC, Case No. IPR2014-00331, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Monsanto Technology LLC, Case No. IPR2014-00332, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Monsanto Technology LLC, Case No. IPR2014-00333, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Monsanto Technology LLC, Case No. IPR2014-00334, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • E.I. du Pont de Nemours and Co. v. Monsanto Technology LLC, Case No. IPR2014-00335, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
  • His representative interference matters before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board include:
    • Andersen v. Wan, Patent Interference No. 105,991, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Andersen v. Wan, Patent Interference No. 106,002, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Anumakonda v. Li, Patent Interference No. 104,390, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization and Bayer BioScience N.V. v. Carnegie Institution of Washington and the University of Massachusetts, Patent Interference No. 105,754, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Dung v. Buehler, Patent Interference No. 105,893, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Hardin v. Williams, Patent Interference No. 105,677, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Kaelin v. Maxwell, Patent Interference No. 105,580, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Kovesdi v. Imler, Patent Interference No. 105,046, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Kovesdi v. Imler, Patent Interference No. 104,822, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Lilly v. Cameron, Patent Interference No. 104,101, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Loughlin v. Ling, Patent Interference No. 105,766, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Yamanouchi Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd., Patent Interference No. 105,789, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Olmarker v. Le, Patent Interference No. 105,842, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Saito v. Imler, Patent Interference No. 104,820, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Tobinick v. Olmarker, Patent Interference No. 105,866, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Wang v. Imler, Patent Interference No. 105,136, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Willis v. Gunderson, Patent Interference No. 105,547, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Yeda Research & Development Co., Ltd. v. Abbott GmbH & Co. KG, Patent Interference No. 103,625, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
    • Zhang v. Imler, Patent Interference No. 104,823, United States Patent and Trademark Office Patent Trial and Appeal Board
  • Christopher's representative litigation matters include:
    • Tobinick v. Olmarker, United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
    • In re Commonwealth Scientific an Industrial Research Organization and Bayer BioScience NV, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit