Venable partner Chris Loh draws from his background in molecular biochemistry, biophysics, and economics to advise clients in the biotech and pharma spaces on intricate IP matters. Chris helps innovators and patent holders protect their investments through litigation and transactions counseling that puts them in a better position to win in court and succeed at the negotiating table. In recognition of his successful track record, Crain's New York Business recently named Chris to its selective list of 2025 Notable Litigators and Trial Attorneys.
In this Q&A, Chris discussed his multifaceted practice, including the challenges his work presents and its importance to the life sciences industry.
Q: When you think about your day to day, is there a particular part of your practice that you find most interesting or rewarding?
Chris: I really like seeing how technological trends in the life sciences industry have evolved over time in both my litigation and transactional work.
Based on the way that pharma patent law works, most pharma patent suits don't arise until several years after an innovator's drug product has hit the market. So, my litigation work often focuses on the past—I'm teaching courts about the years-long efforts it took to bring a drug product out of the laboratory and onto the market, and why those efforts deserve patent protection. By contrast, on the transactions side, I'm looking into the future—I'm advising clients on cutting-edge medical technologies that may not be available anytime soon, and that a lot of people right now might think sound like science fiction.
Between my litigation and transactional work, I'm probably covering a span of 30 years' worth of technological developments in the life sciences industry.
Q: What is the secret to your success in the courtroom?
Chris: A big part of it is translating hard-to-understand scientific concepts into plain language, all to convey the message that our clients' IP rights should be respected.
Most people have very limited day-to-day experience with the science that underlies the patents I litigate. This means that I might show up in a courtroom right after a judge has heard a contract dispute or a criminal case, and I'll have to teach the judge in a short amount of time about our client's drug product, including its chemical and physical properties and how it works in the body. Evaluating that sort of technical evidence is a lot to ask of anyone, so the key to success often lies in choosing which 10% of the technical subject matter is most important for the court to understand, and then figuring out the most compelling way to present that 10%.
Q: What are some trends you are seeing in the patent litigation space, and specifically the industries in which you focus?
Chris: First, an increasing number of pharma and life science litigants are resorting to America Invents Act (AIA) proceedings like IPRs and PGRs to challenge patents in the Patent Office. This wasn't the case when the AIA went into effect in 2012, but life science litigants over time have gained familiarity with those proceedings and are more comfortable taking advantage of them.
Second, I think that general interest in patents has grown now that maintaining America's technological predominance has emerged as a political focus. The importance of a robust patent system in the U.S. is something I've seen increasingly mentioned in IP-related policy discussions.
Q: What are some of the top concerns of your patent litigation clients right now?
Chris: A key concern for clients is a lack of predictability and consistency across different tribunals in terms of how they decide substantive patent law issues. Patent law is factually and legally complex, so different judges may come to different conclusions on those issues.
Practically, what this means for clients is that the patents they hold today might be at risk of being held invalid based on a decision that comes out tomorrow. So, I try to stay on top of new developments in the patent case law. Things change quickly.
Q: Can you tell me about your work helping future generations of IP lawyers?
Chris: I'm a board member of the New York Intellectual Property Law Association (NYIPLA). Because the community of New York-based patent lawyers is relatively small, the NYIPLA is a great resource to help younger lawyers build out their professional networks, so I'm always encouraging them to join. NYIPLA also holds several CLE events throughout the year. Those events provide opportunities for young IP associates not just to network, but to develop their presentation skills and to learn about the issues that their clients consider top of mind.
Over the past few years, I've also mentored Venable's summer associates as participants in the annual NYIPLA moot court competition. The moot court program gives summer associates the chance to hone their brief-writing and oral argument skills in front of real judges on hot-button IP issues. The summer associates really enjoy it!
Q: How did you come to practice patent law?
Chris: I think patent law comes easiest to those of us who have science degrees. That helps a lot in terms of keeping up with fast-moving fields like the life sciences industry. So, whenever a new technology arises, my molecular biology background allows me to get up to speed quickly and become fluent in evaluating the IP-related aspects of that technology.
Because I've always liked learning new things, being in this space allows me to do that while serving my clients in the process. As a patent lawyer, I get to see both where the life sciences industry has been and where it's going.
Learn more about Venable's Patent Litigation Practice.