Christina Sperry

Member

[email protected]

+1.617.348.3018

Share:

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, telecommunications, 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 mechanical, electrical, and electro-mechanical technology spaces, from start-ups to large corporations and academic institutions. She advises on patent preparation, prosecution, and portfolio management 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 medical and surgical instruments and devices including endoscopic, soft tissue, and spinal technologies; printer and imaging technology; wireless technology including 4G, 5G, and 6G; 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.

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, telecommunications, computer hardware, and software. Providing opinions on infringement, validity, and right-to-use is also integral to her practice.

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.
  • Developed an IP strategy for a start-up company that designed a cap for user in monitoring compliance for inhalers to treat asthma. Built a successful portfolio based on the strategy, which led to a successful exit.
Read less

viewpoints

USPTO Weighs in on IT Modernization in CXOTalk Interview

August 31, 2020 | Blog | By Christina Sperry

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

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

Understanding the USPTO’s Interpretation of 35 U.S.C. § 112 for Computer-Implemented Functional Claim Limitations

June 12, 2019 | Blog | By Christina Sperry

Patent practitioners, inventors, in-house counsel, and patent examiners alike have been clamoring for more guidance on computer-implemented functional claim limitations invoking § 112(f) since the Federal Circuit’s en banc Williamson v. Citrix decision in 2015. To help answer some of those pleas, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) published a Federal Register notice on January 7, 2019 to address issues under 35 USC § 112.
Read more

Understanding Antedating of a Prior Art Reference for a Patent

April 17, 2019 | Blog | By Christina Sperry

The Federal Circuit’s decision in ATI Technologies ULC v. Iancu (April 11, 2019) highlights the proper standard to use in evaluating whether a claimed invention was reduced to practice before the effective date of a prior art reference.
Read more

Patent Claim Preamble Lessons from Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Products

April 9, 2019 | Blog | By Christina Sperry

The general rule is that a patent claim’s preamble does not limit the claim unless the preamble gives life, meaning, and vitality to the claim.  The Federal Circuit’s recent decision in Arctic Cat Inc. v. GEP Power Products, Inc. (March 26, 2019) considers the situation where a patentee wants a preamble to be a required claim limitation, unlike the more typical situation where a patentee does not want a claim preamble to be limiting, such as in Pacing Technologies v. Garmin International previously discussed HERE.  The court deciding in Arctic Cat that the preambles at issue were not required claim limitations highlights important considerations for patent application drafting and for crafting post-issuance arguments.
Read more

Patent Term Adjustment: The Real Meaning of Applicant Delay

February 6, 2019 | Blog | By Christina Sperry, Elissa Kingsland

On January 23, 2019, the Federal Circuit decided Supernus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. vs. Iancu and shed light on Patent Term Adjustment (PTA).  PTA was established by the American Inventors Protection Act of 1999 and codified at 35 U.S.C. § 154(b), which defines three kinds of United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) delays, “A” delay, “B” delay, and “C” delay, and sets forth certain reductions from the summation of the Type A, B, and C delays.  One of these reductions relates to Applicant delays.  For an overview of PTA, see our prior articles here and here.
Read more
Read less

News & Press

Press Release Thumbnail Mintz

The Best Lawyers in America 2025 Recognizes 184 Mintz Attorneys across 56 Practice Areas

August 15, 2024

187 Mintz attorneys have been recognized by Best Lawyers® in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©. Notably, three Mintz attorneys received 2025 “Lawyer of the Year” awards, and 64 firm attorneys were included in the 2025 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.

News Thumbnail Mintz

Patent Ruling Shows a Minor Typo Can Lead to a Major Loss

July 17, 2024

Press Release Thumbnail Mintz

One Hundred Twenty Mintz Attorneys Ranked as Leaders by Best Lawyers 2024

August 17, 2023

Mintz is pleased to announce that 120 firm attorneys have been recognized as leaders by Best Lawyers® in the 2024 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©.

Press Release Thumbnail Mintz

Fifty-Four Mintz Attorneys Recognized by 2020 Massachusetts Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

October 13, 2020

Press Release Thumbnail Mintz

Sixty-Eight Mintz Attorneys Recognized by 2019 Massachusetts Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

October 21, 2019

Seventy Mintz Attorneys Named 2018 Massachusetts Super Lawyers and Rising Stars

October 18, 2018

Mintz Expands Renowned Intellectual Property Practice with Addition of Three New Members

April 10, 2014

Read less

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, telecommunications, computer hardware, and software. Providing opinions on infringement, validity, and right-to-use is also integral to her practice.

Recognition & Awards

  • Included on the Massachusetts Super Lawyers list (2016 – 2020)

  • Best Lawyers in America: Patent Law (2024 - 2025)

Read less

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, telecommunications, computer hardware, and software. Providing opinions on infringement, validity, and right-to-use is also integral to her practice.

Involvement

  • Member, Women’s Bar Association of Massachusetts
  • Member, Boston Intellectual Property Law Association
  • Member, Boston Bar Association
Read less

Offices

  • Boston

    • Admissions

  • Massachusetts
  • United States Patent and Trademark Office

    • Related Industries

  • Technology
  • Energy & Sustainability
  • Digital Health

    • Related Practices

  • Patent Prosecution & Strategic Counseling
  • Patent Prosecution
  • Patent Opinions
  • Patent Portfolio Strategy
  • IP Due Diligence
  • Trademark & Copyright

    • Education

    • Boston University School of Law (JD)
    • University of Texas - Austin (BS, Electrical Engineering)

    Recent Insights

    Press Release Thumbnail Mintz

    The Best Lawyers in America 2025 Recognizes 184 Mintz Attorneys across 56 Practice Areas

    187 Mintz attorneys have been recognized by Best Lawyers® in the 2025 edition of The Best Lawyers in America©. Notably, three Mintz attorneys received 2025 “Lawyer of the Year” awards, and 64 firm attorneys were included in the 2025 edition of Best Lawyers: Ones to Watch.

    News Thumbnail Mintz

    Patent Ruling Shows a Minor Typo Can Lead to a Major Loss

    Intellectual Property Viewpoints Thumbnail

    A Typo to Remember: Erroneous Patent Number in Terminal Disclaimer Destroys Exclusive Rights

    June 14, 2024| Blog|

    Christina Sperry

    Member

    Boston