Chris Henry represents clients in high-stakes trade secret and patent litigation before US district courts, the US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board, and the US International Trade Commission.

Mr. Henry represents high technology clients in intellectual property litigation involving a wide variety of technologies, including software, electromechanical devices, medical technologies, and semiconductors.

He draws on his trial experience and strong oral advocacy skills to help clients obtain multi-million dollar settlements, summary judgment and trial victories, and other favorable resolutions.

Mr. Henry’s pro bono work includes working with Project Citizenship, an organization that helps eligible immigrants become US citizens.

Mr. Henry clerked for Judge Henry Coke Morgan Jr. in the US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia and served under Magistrate Judge Mary Pat Thynge in the US District Court for the District of Delaware.

Mr. Henry’s experience includes:

  • Neural Magic, Inc. v. Meta Platforms, Inc. (f/k/a Facebook) (D. Mass), representing Meta in its trade secret dispute against artificial intelligence startup Neural Magic, Inc.
  • Latch v. LET Investor Group (SDNY; AAA; Virginia), represented Latch in multi-jurisdictional dispute involving trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, and civil RICO claims; complete verdict on contract claims adjudicated in arbitration, litigation favorably resolved after dismissal of Virginia state actions
  • CardioNet, LLC v. InfoBionic, Inc. (D. Mass), favorably resolved claims for InfoBionic in a suit involving six patents and alleged trade secret misappropriation
  • Jaguar Land Rover v. Volkswagen Group, favorably resolved actions on Jaguar Land Rover’s behalf in the Eastern District of Virginia, the ITC, and related inter partes reviews
  • Watlow v. Volvo (D.N.J.), defended the automobile manufacturer in a patent infringement action involving layered heating systems and related manufacturing processes; successfully invalidated one asserted patent in inter partes review, and district court proceeding resolved favorable after claims related to a second asserted patent were dismissed
  • Digital Video Receivers and Related Hardware and Software Components, Inv. No. 337-TA-1103, defended a well-known cable television company in a high-stakes action concerning digital video technology
  • Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No. 337-TA-994, represented a music player manufacturer in a case involving music categorization, in which the Federal Circuit affirmed a successful Section 101-based defense*
  • Research Frontiers v. E-Ink (D. Del.), represented an electrophoretic display company in a multi-patent infringement action and obtained claim constructions leading to a stipulation of non-infringement, which the Federal Circuit affirmed*

*Matter handled prior to joining Latham

Bar Qualification

  • Massachusetts
  • US Patent and Trademark Office


  • JD, Washington & Lee University School of Law, 2009
    magna cum laude
  • BE in Chemical Engineering, The Cooper Union for the Advancement of Science and Art, 2006