Christopher S. Schultz

Partner

Boston, MA
D: 617.345.3553
Overview
Practices
Connect
Boston, MA
D: 617.345.3553
vCard

Christopher S. Schultz is a patent attorney who has litigated and counseled clients in intellectual property law for over twenty years and is the head of the firm's Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) practice.  He is an experienced lead trial attorney who has successfully litigated patent and trade secret matters in federal district court, the PTAB, the International Trade Commission (ITC), and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.  Mr. Schultz lectures on patent litigation at the Practicing Law Institute in New York City.

Mr. Schultz has a degree in electrical engineering and is skilled on matters involving complex technologies, particularly in computer hardware and software, networking, wireless telecommunications, artificial intelligence, and medical devices. In his counseling practice, Chris advises clients in licensing, due diligence, freedom to operate, portfolio management, patent prosecution, and monetization of IP rights. He also works extensively with startups and venture-backed companies.

Prior to becoming an attorney, Chris was a patent examiner in the electrical engineering art. He also served as a full-time intern for the Honorable Randall R. Rader at the U.S. Court of Appeals to the Federal Circuit.

In his pro bono work, Chris works on matters with the New England Innocence Project.

Experience

Experience

  • OrthoAccel Technologies, Inc. v. Propel Orthodontics LLC (N.D. of California) (Federal Circuit 2019)
    • Lead counsel for Propel in a bet-the-company case. A competitor sued Propel to prevent Propel from selling its industry-leading orthodontic device. Schultz defeated a motion for preliminary injunction at the district court and at the subsequent appeal to The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Case reported here.
  • OrthoAccel Technologies, Inc. v. Propel Orthodontics LLC (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)  
    • Lead Counsel for Propel in inter partes review filed to invalidate patent asserted against Propel. The PTAB found all claims invalid, and noted that the oral argument was “one of the best argued hearings in the last five or six years.” OrthoAccel has appealed. Case reported here.
  • Impact Selector International,LLC v.Petromac IP Ltd. (Patent Trial and Appeal Board)
    • Lead Counsel for client Petromac. Obtained a denial of institution of an IPR petition filed against a patent covering Petromac’s industry leading product, a device that carries sensor equipment through a wellbore.
  • Roland Corp. v. inMusic Brands (Patent Trial and Appeal Board) 
    • Serving as lead counsel for inMusic Brands, secured three non-institution decisions on three inter partes review (IPR) petitions seeking to invalidate inMusic’s patents related to electronic drum kit technology.
  • UTStarcom, Inc. v. Starent Networks Corp. (N.D. Illinois) 
    • Lead Counsel for Starent Networks in a complex patent, trade secret, and copyright case involving wireless telecommunications infrastructure technology in which the plaintiff alleged 20 counts against Starent and eighteen of its current or former employees. Prior to settlement, all but four claims and four defendants were dismissed through motion practice, and the court granted Starent's motion for summary judgment of noninfringement on one of the patents-in-suit. Case reported here.
  • Flashmark LLC v. Gtech (E.D. Texas)
    • Lead counsel for client Gtech defending a major Gtech product line accused of infringement. Schultz briefed and argued the Markman hearing and obtained a stipulation of non-infringement after the Court’s Markman ruling precluded the possibility of infringement.
  • UTStarcom, Inc. v. Starent Networks Corp. (N.D. California) 
    • Represented Starent Networks in a case involving a patent that described a way for mobile devices to connect to the Internet. Played a lead role in successfully opposing the plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction, and in Starent's claim construction and motion for summary judgment of noninfringement, which was affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
  • Commonwealth of Massachusetts v. Davis (Superior Ct.) (Supreme Judicial Court)
    • Served as lead counsel with the New England Innocence Project in a landmark pro bono case in which client Arthur Davis was granted a new trial after 33 years of incarceration. Mr. Davis was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life without the possibility of parole in 1986. Eight years of investigation, motion practice, and DNA testing culminated in a motion for new trial filed in 2017, which was granted in November 2018 . The Commonwealth has sought review by the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts. Case reported here.
Education & Admissions
Bar Admissions

Massachusetts

U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Education

J.D., Franklin Pierce Law Center

B.S., Syracuse University

Memberships

Memberships

American Bar Association

Boston Patent Law Association

PTAB Bar Association

Speaking Engagements

Speaking Engagements

4D Meets AI Conference, Guest Speaker, Life Science Nation, September 2020

"Halo and Opinions," SAS Forum on Non-Practicing Entities (NPE) Litigation, September 2019

Articles & Publications

Articles & Publications

quotes

"Eligibility Ruling Provides ‘Fertile Ground’ for Patent Lawyers," Bloomberg Law, March 2020

Resources
Christopher S. Schultz
Practices
  • Patent
  • Intellectual Property & IP Litigation
  • IP Due Diligence
  • Intellectual Property
  • IP Litigation
Education

J.D., Franklin Pierce Law Center

B.S., Syracuse University

Admissions

Massachusetts

U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit

U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Email Confirmation

Thank you for your interest in Burns & Levinson LLP. Please be aware that unsolicited e-mails and information sent to Burns & Levinson though our web site will not be considered confidential, may not receive a response, and do not create an attorney-client relationship with Burns & Levinson. If you are not already a client of Burns & Levinson, do not include anything confidential or secret in this e-mail. Also, please note that our attorneys do not seek to practice law in any jurisdiction in which they are not authorized to do so.

By clicking "OK" you acknowledge that, unless you are a current client, Burns & Levinson does not have any obligation to maintain the confidentiality of any information you send us.

Ok Cancel