Christina is a seasoned patent attorney who has deep capabilities around drafting and prosecuting patents related to the electrical, mechanical and electro-mechanical fields. She represents companies and academic institutions across the medical technology spectrum as well as a variety of other technology companies. She helps patent innovations related to medical and surgical instruments and devices, mechanical products and processes, digital health and other technology apps, computer hardware, and software. Providing opinions on infringement, validity, and right-to-use is also integral to her practice.
Christina is an experienced patent attorney whose clients are focused in the medical technology space, from start-ups to large corporations and academic institutions. She advises on patent preparation and prosecution and provides opinions on infringement, validity, and right-to-use for clients in the US and internationally.
The areas of technology in which Christina is particularly focused include mechanical, electrical, and electro-mechanical technical fields such as medical and surgical instruments and devices including endoscopic, soft tissue, and spinal technologies; printer and imaging technology; wireless technology; semiconductors; computer hardware; computer network technology; software such as database management systems, communication protocols, and graphics interfaces; financial services; cell sorting technology; and radar technology.
While in law school, Christina served as the executive editor of the Journal of Science & Technology Law.
Education
- Boston University School of Law (JD)
- University of Texas - Austin (BS, Electrical Engineering)
Experience
- Represent private equity-owned Wayne Fueling Systems, formerly a division of General Electric, which manufactures fuel dispensers for petroleum retailers and commercial fleets, and compressed natural gas fueling pumps. Mintz handles worldwide patent and trademark strategy and prosecution, and enforces those protections in the US and abroad. The firm's relationship attorney serves as outside patent counsel and sits on the patent review committee, working directly with the company's stakeholders in developing patent strategy.
- Advised medical device client on developing and implementing a post-litigation strategy. Having lost a patent litigation (in which they were represented by another law firm), Mintz attorneys helped the company assess whether they could keep their product on the market during the appeal process. We then provided advice on how to create possible design-arounds for the product to ensure it was clear of infringing the patents at issue, in the event that the appeal was unsuccessful.
Recognition & Awards
- Included on the Massachusetts Super Lawyers list (2016 – 2020)
Involvement
- Member, Women’s Bar Association of Massachusetts
- Member, Boston Patent Law Association
- Member, Boston Bar Association
- Board of Directors and Chair of Website and Internet Communications Committee, Friends of Christopher Columbus Park
Recent Insights
Viewpoints
Year in Review: The Most Popular IP Posts of 2020
January 14, 2021 |Blog
Overview of USPTO Webinar: Understanding Patenting in China
December 17, 2020 |Blog
Procuring U.S. Patents without a Signed Assignment of Patent Rights
October 27, 2020 |Blog
Viewpoints
Year in Review: The Most Popular IP Posts of 2020
January 14, 2021 | Blog | By Christina Sperry
As 2021 begins and intellectual property (IP) strategies are being developed for the new year, it is a good time to reflect on what IP issues were prominent in 2020. According to many readers, hot topics included Chinese foreign filing licenses, patenting involving either artificial intelligence (AI) or COVID-19, inter partes review, and attorney fee awards.
Read more
Overview of USPTO Webinar: Understanding Patenting in China
December 17, 2020 | Blog | By Christina Sperry, Paul Brockland
Patent protection in China has been a hot topic of discussion and strategy for U.S. companies. The U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) China team within the USPTO's Office of Policy and International Affairs is a dedicated group of intellectual property (IP) attorneys and specialists with knowledge and experience on China manners from the U.S. law perspective as well as the Chinese law perspective.
Read more
Procuring U.S. Patents without a Signed Assignment of Patent Rights
October 27, 2020 | Blog | By Christina Sperry, Mark Hammond
Increased employee mobility, health challenges, and the economic downturn due to the COVID-19 pandemic may result in more inventors than usual being unavailable to assign patent rights. Fortunately, applicants may procure a U.S. patent even if an assignment document cannot be obtained for the application to be filed.
Read more
Patent Application Declarations for Unavailable or Uncooperative Inventors
September 14, 2020 | Blog | By Christina Sperry, Mark Hammond
Increased employee mobility, health challenges, and the economic downturn due to the COVID-19 pandemic may result in more inventors than usual being unavailable to sign declarations for patent applications as required by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) for all applications.
Read more
USPTO Weighs in on IT Modernization in CXOTalk Interview
August 31, 2020 | Blog | By Christina Sperry, Paul Brockland
How does an important U.S. government agency modernize its operations, especially during a global health crisis? What IT modernization approach can U.S. patent and trademark practitioners expect from the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO)?
Read more
Strategic Considerations for Obtaining a Foreign Filing License in China
April 27, 2020 | Blog | By Christina Sperry, Mark Hammond
As more U.S. businesses employ inventors abroad, the need for foreign filing licenses increases, especially if patent rights are first sought domestically. Obtaining foreign filing licenses may present financial and linguistic obstacles, potentially jeopardizing the priority date of your application or patent rights within the foreign country.
Read more
An Informative PTAB Decision on Patent Eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101
January 30, 2020 | Blog | By Christina Sperry, Justin J. Leisey
The U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) recently designated its decision in Ex Parte HANNUN (Appeal 2018-003323) (“HANNUN”) as being informative regarding the application of the latest 2019 revised guidance on patent-eligible subject matter.
Read more
Year in Review: The Most Popular IP Posts of 2019
January 6, 2020 | Blog | By Christina Sperry
As 2020 begins and intellectual property (IP) strategies are being developed for the new year, it is a good time to reflect on what IP issues were prominent in 2019. According to many readers, hot topics included § 112 written description, prosecution history estoppel, and venue in the wake of TC Heartland.
Read more
Help from the PTAB in Applying USPTO § 101 Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance
July 12, 2019 | Blog | By Christina Sperry
In July 2019 the U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) newly designated four decisions as informative to highlight the PTAB’s general consensus on issues considered in these cases. All four cases involve the PTAB applying the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s January 2019 guidance for determining subject matter eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101. The decisions focus on whether claims integrate a judicial exception into a practical application so as to be subject matter eligible.
Read more
Effect of A Restriction Requirement on Prosecution History Estoppel
July 2, 2019 | Blog | By Christina Sperry
The decision whether to issue a Restriction Requirement during patent prosecution lies with the patent examiner, not the patent applicant. A Restriction Requirement can nevertheless trigger prosecution history estoppel that limits the scope of an applicant’s issued claim. The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in UCB, Inc. v. Watson Laboratories Inc. helps show how this situation can happen and how applicants can help prevent an examiner’s decision from adversely affecting patent scope.
Read more
News & Press
