Chris Leah focuses his practice on patent litigation matters in U.S. district courts and the International Trade Commission, as well as post-grant proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He has represented clients across a variety of technologies, including medical devices, textile products, swimming pool equipment and maintenance, semiconductors, and consumer goods. Chris is also a registered patent attorney before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.
While attending law school, Chris worked with the firm as a summer associate in 2018 and 2019 on its patent litigation and patent prosecution teams. Chris served as a student attorney in the Entrepreneurship and Non-Profit Legal Clinic at the University of Alabama School of Law where he provided pro bono, transactional legal services to small businesses, nonprofit organizations, inventors, start-ups and entrepreneurs, social enterprises, and community development organizations.
While attending the University of Alabama, Chris was a research assistant for Dr. Paul Allison in the Advanced Composite Materials Laboratory where he prepared literary reviews and journal articles for specific materials and tests and performed high-rate, quasi-static, and nano-indention tests of materials.
Defended Nalu Medical in a patent lawsuit filed by Nevro over spinal cord stimulators, which included injunctive relief to prevent Nalu from commercializing its recently FDA-approved neurostimulation system. On the eve of the claim construction hearing in Delaware, and shortly before the PTAB’s institution decision of Nalu’s IPR Petition challenging Nevro’s patent was due, we obtained a favorable settlement for Nalu. Nevro Corp. v. Nalu Medical, Inc., No. 1-20-cv-00291 (D. Del.) and Nalu Medical, Inc. v. Nevro Corp., IPR2021-01023 (PTAB)
Represented Zodiac Pool Systems LLC and Zodiac Pool Care Europe, leading manufacturers and innovators in the pool care industry, in a patent infringement and importation investigation at the International Trade Commission, with a related action in the Central District of California, against Wybotics, Co. Ltd. (d/b/a Winny Pool Cleaner), Tianjin Pool & Spa, Aiper Inc., Aiper Intelligent, LLC, and Shenzhen Aiper Intelligent Co., Ltd. The investigation involved two Zodiac patents covering pioneering technology in robotic pool cleaners. We were able to stop these entities’ infringement before trial. Specifically, before the close of fact discovery, Zodiac settled favorably with the Aiper entities on confidential terms, leading to the issuance of a consent order which bars Aiper from importing or selling any of the Accused Products in the United States. Zodiac also obtained sworn representations during discovery from Wybotics that it had completely stopped manufacturing, importing, and selling the Accused Products in the United States. Certain Robotic Pool Cleaners and Components Thereof, U.S. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1326; Zodiac Pool Care Europe v. Wybotics, Co. Ltd. et al, No. 2:22-cv-05271 (C.D. Cal.). We also helped coordinate strategy for a seizure and infringement action in France involving the same products, which remains pending.
Represented adidas AG, adidas North America, Inc., adidas America, Inc., and adidas International Trading AG in patent infringement and importation investigation at ITC brought by Nike, Inc., related to the design and manufacture of shoe uppers for knitted footwear, with related action in Oregon federal court. One of the largest patent cases in the footwear industry, the case involved nine U.S. patents from multiple distinct families of patents, each covering a different subject matter. After completing both fact and expert discovery, the case was settled on confidential terms shortly before the evidentiary hearing at the ITC. In re Certain Knitted Footwear, U.S. ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1289; Nike, Inc. v. adidas AG et al., No. 3:21-cv-01780 (D. Or.)
Insights View All
University of Alabama School of Law J.D. (2020) Judge Eris F. Paul Full-Tuition Academic Scholarship, CALI Award
University of Alabama B.S. (2017) Mechanical Engineering, magna cum laude
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2017)
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.