Christopher Pinahs practices intellectual property law, with an emphasis on patent and trademark litigation. Applying his background in the biological sciences, Chris has extensive experience representing clients in the pharmaceutical, medical device, and agricultural arts. In all arenas, Chris uses his technical background to help clients develop their case and implement an appropriate strategy to achieve their business goals.
Chris has significant trial experience, including the representation of a generic manufacturer in its challenge of several patents directed to Purdue’s multibillion-dollar OxyContin® product. Chris was also part of the team that upheld this verdict on appeal at the Federal Circuit. More recently, Chris was a member of a trial team that prevailed on several patents directed to the Alzheimer’s drug, Namenda XR®. Chris also handles trademark matters, successfully defeating a motion for preliminary injunction in the District of Minnesota.
In addition to his litigation practice, Chris has drafted IP-related agreements for agricultural clients, conducted IP-portfolio investigations for medical-device companies, and participated in freedom-to-operate investigations for telecommunication businesses.
Chris is also active in the legal community, including pro bono representation through the Pro Se Project. He previously served as the chair of the Intellectual Property Practice Group for the Minnesota Federal Bar Association (2015-2016), and currently serves as a member of the Grants Committee for the Minnesota Federal Bar Association.
Prior to working as an IP attorney, Chris was a law clerk to the Honorable David S. Doty in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. During law school, Chris was a legal writing instructor, a Managing Editor for the Minnesota Law Review, and studied to obtain his master’s degree in Plant Biological Sciences.
Represented Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. in Hatch-Waxman patent litigation concerning a Section 505(b)(2) application for a pain treatment drug. Obtained summary judgment of non-infringement. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Collegium Pharm., Inc., 335 F. Supp. 3d 149 (D. Mass. 2018).
Represented Collegium Pharmaceutical, Inc. in Hatch-Waxman patent litigation concerning the filing of its Supplemental NDA for a pain treatment drug. Argued motion to dismiss and obtained full dismissal of lawsuit. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Collegium Pharm., Inc., No. 17-cv-11923 (D. Mass. 2018).
Represented Collegium Pharmaceutical Inc. in a Post-Grant Review at the PTAB seeking cancellation of patent directed to a pain management drug. Collegium Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Purdue Pharma L.P., PGR2018-00048 (filed March 13, 2018).
Defended Club Car, LLC in IPRs brought by competitor Yamaha Golf Car Company. Obtained complete victory in each of the four IPRs. PTAB ruled that no patent claim was invalid as anticipated or obvious. Yamaha Golf Car Co. v. Club Car, LLC, IPR2017-02141, et seq. (Final Written Decision Apr. 2, 2019).
Represented Medtronic in thirteen IPRs challenging five patents directed to guide extension catheters. Medtronic, Inc. v. Teleflex Innovations S.À.R.L., IPR2020-00126, et seq. (filed Nov. 12, 2019).
Represented Upsher-Smith Laboratories in Hatch-Waxman litigation concerning five Orange Book listed patents for the acne drug, Absorica.® Sun Pharmaceutical Industries, Inc. v. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, No. 19-cv-02546 (D.N.J. 2019).
Represented Zenara Pharma Private Limited in Hatch-Waxman litigation concerning four Orange Book listed patents for a Gaucher disease drug, Cerdelga.® Genzyme Corp. v. Zenara Pharma Private Limited, No. 18-cv-01795 (D. Del. 2018).
Represented Collegium Pharmaceutical Inc. in brand-on-brand pharmaceutical litigation relating to the sale of Nucynta.® Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Collegium NF, LLC., No. 18-cv-00226 (D. Del. 2018).
Lead counsel in action that obtained habeas corpus relief for detained individual. Abdulkadir v. Sessions, No. 18-cv-2353 (NEB/HB), 2018 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 219431 (D. Minn. Nov. 13, 2018).
Represented Teva Pharmaceuticals in Hatch-Waxman litigation involving seven Orange Book listed patents for the extended-release Alzheimer’s drug, Namenda XR®. Part of a team that invalidated six patents, on indefiniteness grounds, prior to trial. Forest Labs., Inc. v. Teva Pharms. USA, Inc., C.A. No. 14-121, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 322 (D. Del. Jan. 5, 2016), aff’d 716 F. App’x 987 (Fed. Cir. 2017). Upon completion of a four-day bench trial on the remaining patent, the matter settled for value. (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP.)
Represented Teva Pharmaceuticals in Hatch-Waxman litigation concerning its ANDA for a pain management drug. After an eight-day bench trial, the court found each asserted patent was either not infringed and/or invalid. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Teva Pharms., USA, Inc. (In re OxyContin Antitrust Litig.), 994 F. Supp. 2d 367 (S.D.N.Y. 2014), aff’d sub nom. Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Epic Pharma, LLC, 811 F.3d 1345 (Fed. Cir. 2016). (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP.)
Represented Rust-Oleum in a trademark matter in the District of Minnesota. Was part of a team that defeated a motion for preliminary injunction. Plasti-Dip Int’l Inc. v. Rust-Oleum Brands Co., Civil No. 14-1831, 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 174560 (D. Minn. Dec. 16, 2014). (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP.)
Represented Breckenridge Pharmaceuticals in a Hatch-Waxman litigation relating to a cachexia drug, Megace ES®. Par Pharmaceutical Inc. v. Breckenridge Pharmaceutical Inc., No. 13-cv-01114 (D. Del.) (Prior to joining Robins Kaplan LLP.)
- Member of the Grants Committee for the Minnesota Federal Bar Association (2016-2018)
- Chair of the Intellectual Property Practice Group for the Minnesota Federal Bar Association (2015-2016)
- “Purdue’s ‘Duplicative’ Suit Over OxyContin Generic Gets Ax,” Law360 (January 16, 2018)
- “Purdue Loses Bid to Fuse Jumble of OxyContin Patent Suits,” Law360 (December 13, 2017)
- “Xtampza Not Infringing 2 OxyContin Patents, Judge Says,” Law360 (October 1, 2018)
- “Justices Won't Hear Drugmakers' OxyContin Patent Appeal,” Law360 (November 14, 2016)
- “Fed. Circ. Won't Rehear Ruling That Axed 4 OxyContin Patents,” Law360 (May 4, 2016)
- “Fed. Circ. Affirms Ruling Axing 4 Purdue OxyContin Patents,” Law360 (February 1, 2016)
If you are interested in having us represent you, you should call us so we can determine whether the matter is one for which we are willing or able to accept professional responsibility. We will not make this determination by e-mail communication. The telephone numbers and addresses for our offices are listed on this page. We reserve the right to decline any representation. We may be required to decline representation if it would create a conflict of interest with our other clients.
By accepting these terms, you are confirming that you have read and understood this important notice.