Christopher L. May

PARTNER

vCard

Massey & Gail LLP
The Wharf
1000 Maine Ave. SW
Suite 450
Washington, D.C. 20024

Office: 202.652.4511
Direct: 202.643.2712
Fax: 312.379.0467

Christopher May leads Massey & Gail’s intellectual property practice and has nearly 20 years of experience handling patent and trademark litigation representing both plaintiffs and defendants in a wide range of technologies and industries, and counsels pharmaceutical, integrated circuit, software, and mechanical device companies with intellectual property issues.

Chris has also represented respondents in Section 337 import cases before the International Trade Commission.  In two cases before the Commission he successfully defended through hearing and appeal a major consumer electronics company for whom over 75% of its imports to the United States were at risk of loss.

Prior to joining Massey & Gail, Chris was a partner at Ballast IP Law — a patent boutique in Washington. Before that, he was a partner at McDermott Will & Emery. Chris graduated cum laude with a degree in Chemistry from Duke University, holds a Master’s in Chemistry from Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and earned his J.D./M.B.A. from the University of Chicago with a concentration in entrepreneurship. He serves on the boards of D.C. Lawyers for Youth and the Concord Hill School, and he teaches patent litigation and international intellectual property courses for the University of Maryland Law School.

  • University of Chicago, J.D./M.B.A., concentration in Entrepreneurship, 2001
  • Massachusetts Institute of Technology, M.S., Chemistry, 1997
  • Duke University, B.S., Chemistry, cum laude, 1994
  • New York
  • District of Columbia
  • Eastern District of New York
  • Southern District of New York
  • United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Fellow, Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (2016)

  • “Federal Circuit Rejects ITC’s Authority Over Intangible Articles,” IP Update, Vol. 19, No. 4, April 2016
  • “Federal Circuit Upholds ITC Interpretation of Section 337 To Cover Induced Infringement,” Intellectual Property & Technology Law Journal, December 2015
  • “Violation of ITC Consent Order Can Be Based On ‘Infringement’ of Valid Claims,” IP Update, Vol. 18, No. 12, December 2015
  • “Federal Circuit Panel Rejects ITC Assertion of Authority Over Intangible Articles,” IP Update, Vol. 18, No. 11, November 2015
  • “Federal Circuit Upholds ITC Interpretation of Section 337 To Cover Induced Infringement,” IP Update, Vol. 18, No. 8, August 2015
  • “Activities for sNDA and Citizen’s Petition Protected by ‘Safe Harbor’,” IP Update, Vol. 18, No. 6, June 2015
  • “Alternative Billing Arrangements in Intellectual Property Litigation,” Celesq, May 2009
  • “Publishing, Presenting and Patenting: the University’s Dilemma,” University of Oklahoma, July 2008
  • “Intellectual Property: What It Is, Why You Should Care, and What You Can Do To Protect It,” Annual National Society of Black Engineers Conference, March 2008
  • “Claim Construction in District Court Patent Litigation,” CLE Presentation, January 2008
  • Adjunct Professor, University of Maryland (2017-present)
  • Adjunct Professor, Michigan State University (2007-2011)
  • Successfully defended a major consumer electronics company in ITC investigation and secured a no violation finding and termination in client’s favor.
  • Represented the Martin Luther King, Jr. Center for Nonviolent Social Change in defense of the Center’s right to use intellectual property, including the writings and spoken words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
  • Represented pharmaceutical manufacturer in Abbreviated New Drug Application case involving drug with $400 million in annual revenue.
  • Successfully defended consumer electronics company in series of ITC and federal district court actions, confirming the client’s right to continue importation into the United States.
  • Represented and settled on favorable terms after claim construction pharmaceutical manufacturer in Abbreviated New Drug Application.
  • Represented healthcare company in a case involving automated robotic storage systems for prescriptions in hospital wards.  Jury finding of validity and non-infringement.