Christopher H. Blaszkowski

How Chris Helps Clients

Chris is the co-leader of Buchanan’s chemical & biotechnology practice group.

If your story begins with an inventive concept, then the issuance of a patent—while important—is just the first chapter. Chris provides a holistic, cradle-to-grave perspective regarding IP strategy, enabling him to effectively partner with his clients to avoid pitfalls, resolve disputes and craft creative solutions.  From patent drafting and prosecution through enforcement, Chris partners with his clients to assist in achieving their business goals through intellectual property success.

Whether his clients are facing a patent troll or a competitor, Chris draws on his combination of practice areas to effectively litigate complex patent cases, provide superior representation, and offer realistic, business-oriented advice.

Chris has extensive experience in patent litigation and federal litigation practice. He serves as local and lead counsel, participating in all aspects of district court and appellate litigation. Chris is adept at formulating litigation and pre-litigation strategies as well as day-to-day litigation case management.

As a Delaware attorney and as a former clerk to retired Chief Judge Sue L. Robinson of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, Chris appreciates the sophistication and expertise of the Delaware District Court in resolving intellectual property issues. Chris routinely appears in Delaware Courts and is knowledgeable about the practices of each District Court judge.

Chris leverages this litigation experience in his post-grant proceedings practice. He represents clients in post-grant proceedings such as inter partes reviews (IPRs) before the PTAB. He has successfully represented patent owners and petitioners alike. Chris has guided clients through all aspects of post grant proceedings, including from the development of invalidity positions to the filing of the petition requesting post grant review, through discovery (including taking depositions of inventors and experts) and arguing the case to the PTAB. From petition drafting through final written decision and appeal, Chris understands the strict procedures governing AIA trials and uses his extensive knowledge for his clients’ benefit—invalidating the patent claims of a competitor or guiding his clients’ valuable patent claims to safety.

Recent cases before Federal Courts and the PTAB include:

• Arigna Technology Ltd. v. Volkswagen et al., (E.D. Tx.) (defended automotive supplier and OEM customers against hedge-fund backed non-practicing entity in a patent infringement lawsuit relating to ADAS technology, obtaining favorable settlement on eve of trial)
• A.O. Smith Corp. v. Bradford White Corp., (D. Del.) (represented defendant through trial involving patents covering residential water heating systems)
• Magnesita Refractories and Baker Refractories I.C. Inc. v. Tianjin New Century Refractories Co., Ltd. et. al (M.D. Pa.) (successfully represented plaintiffs in a trade secret misappropriation lawsuit relating to refractory material compositions after convincing US court to exercise jurisdiction over Chinese entities; favorable settlement achieved after summary judgment briefing)
• Barrier1 Systems, Inc. v. RSA Protective Technologies, LLC (E.D. Pa.) (represented declaratory judgment plaintiff in lawsuit concerning protective bollards)
• Cabela’s LLC v. Highby Outdoors, LLC, (D. Del.) (successfully represented former Cabela’s executives at preliminary injunction hearing and on appeal against non-compete and trade secret misappropriation claims)
• Remediation Products, Inc. v. Innovative Environmental Tech., Inc. (P.T.A.B.) (successfully obtained final written decision invalidating all asserted claims in IPR involving environmental remediation technology)
• Innovative Environmental Technologies, Inc. and Provectus Environmental Products, Inc. v. Total Petrochemicals & Refining USA, Inc. and RETIA USA, LLC(E.D.Pa.) (represented defendants in patent infringement lawsuit which settled before inter partes review invalidated all of plaintiffs’ asserted claims)
• AMETEK Denmark A/S v. Fluke Corp. (P.T.A.B.) (successfully obtained final written decision upholding the patentability of all challenged claims, which judgment was again reached a second time following remand by the Federal Circuit to consider the patentability of previously non-instituted claims)
• Controls Southeast, Inc. v. QMax Technologies, et al. (W.D.N.C.) (successfully represented plaintiff in trade secret misappropriation claims relating to the alleged theft of a heat transfer modeling program and involving a counterclaim of patent infringement which involved, as settlement, a reassignment of certain of defendant’s intellectual property to plaintiff)
• Crayola LLC v. Univ. of Cincinnati (P.T.A.B.) (successfully obtained final written decision invalidating all asserted claims in IPR involving recreational light emissive devices)
• Universal Stabilization Technologies, Inc. v. Advanced Bionutrition Corp. (S.D. Cal.) (represented defendant in D.J. action concerning inventorship and unjust enrichment; won case on summary judgment)
• Helios Software LLC et al v. SpectorSoft Corporation (D. Del.) (successfully represented defendant in patent infringement lawsuit relating to monitoring software)

What Clients Can Expect

Chris is unapologetically curious. He is never satisfied with easy or simple answers—but he doesn’t dismiss them either. Continually assessing and reassessing how to best meet his clients’ business objectives and/or defeat enforcement actions by competitors, Chris looks at technical legal problems from multiple angles.  Chris’ curiosity helps him quickly understand his client’s technological focus and business needs and his extensive intellectual property experience allow him to translate this information into an effective legal strategy—be it through litigation or otherwise. 

Chris is also a born advocate, though his advocacy extends beyond the intellectual property matters he litigates in federal court and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. He argues passionately on behalf of his clients, which range from Fortune companies to children within the foster care system.

I will be aggressive and straight-forward in leveraging my IP skillset to pursue your business objectives.

Outside the Office

Outside of the office, Chris can be found adventure seeking in Chester County with his wonderful wife and his two young daughters. Chris enjoys coaching his daughters in softball, both aspiring pitchers. Chris keeps active with a combination of running, kettlebells, and Brazilian Jiujitsu—a sport which, philosophically, mirrors the adversity of litigation.

Proof Points 

• Represented automakers and OEM defendants in a patent infringement action in the Eastern District of Texas regarding semiconductor technology used in automotive radar components and power inverters. 
• Obtained summary judgment resulting in the dismissal of an inventorship claim in the Southern District of California and associated business tort claims (unjust enrichment, constructive trust) associated with that inventorship claim.
• Represented defendants in a patent infringement action involving dechlorination/remediation technology in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and corresponding inter partes review.   All claims were found to be unpatentable as a result of the inter partes review.
• Represented plaintiff manufacturer asserting claims under the Defend Trade Secret Act and state trade secret statute against manufacturing competitor located in China.
• Represented plaintiff manufacturer in an action seeking a declaratory judgment of no infringement and asserting various trade secret claims. Defendants included ex-employees of plaintiff that left to form a competitor. The case settled following denial of defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and all of the patents in suit were assigned to the manufacturer.