Christopher D. Mays

Christopher D. Mays

Of Counsel

Expert Litigator

Christopher is relied on for his patent litigation and trial expertise, having prevailed in several civil trials within his 15 years of practice.
Commitment to Community

Christopher frequently takes on pro bono matters and twice has received the John Wilson Award, an annual award given to individual attorneys who have shown remarkable dedication to the firm’s pro bono clients.

Christopher Mays is Of Counsel in the Palo Alto office of Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati. His practice primarily focuses on patent litigation and intellectual property counseling in a wide variety of industries, including software, semiconductors, medical devices, material sciences, mechanical engineering, and mobile payment systems. Christopher’s notable experience includes trial and appellate advocacy for a number of clients as well as advising clients on patent practice strategy.

In addition to his regular practice, Christopher frequently contributes to the firm’s pro bono efforts, and has won the John Wilson Award twice, in 2016 and 2017. The annual award is given to individual attorneys who have shown remarkable dedication to the firm’s pro bono clients.

Prior to attending law school, Christopher worked for the California State Legislature and for the United States House of Representatives.

Experience

Prior to attending law school, Christopher worked for the California State Legislature and for the United States House of Representatives.

Education

J.D., UC Davis School of Law, 2009
Intellectual Property Law Association; King Hall Business Journal; Quarter-finalist, King Hall Mock Trial Competition
B.S., Computer Science, University of California, Davis, 2004

Admissions

State Bar of California
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Credentials

Education

J.D., UC Davis School of Law, 2009
Intellectual Property Law Association; King Hall Business Journal; Quarter-finalist, King Hall Mock Trial Competition
B.S., Computer Science, University of California, Davis, 2004

Admissions

State Bar of California
U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office

Select Matters

Via Transportation, Inc. v. RideCo, Inc.: Christopher represented Via Transportation in a jury trial involving microtransit rideshare technology where both parties asserted patents. He helped secure a complete win for Via, with a jury finding that RideCo infringed Via’s patents and that Via did not infringe RideCo’s patents.
I-Mab Biopharma v. Inhibrix: Christopher represented Inhibrix in a jury trial finding that Inhibrix did not misappropriate I-Mab’s alleged trade secrets. He helped secure a complete defensive verdict for Inhibrix.
DataCore Software Corp. v. Scale Computing Inc.: Christopher represented Scale Computing in a jury trial involving data storage technology. He helped secure a complete defensive verdict of both non-infringement and patent invalidity for Scale.
Cyntec Company Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp. et al: Christopher represented Cyntec in a jury trial finding Chilisin to have willfully infringed multiple patents involving electronic inductors, which resulted in Cyntec being awarded enhanced (treble) damages and a permanent injunction.
Epistar Corporation v. Lowe’s Home Centers: Christopher represents Epistar in multiple litigation matters involving LED lighting technology. He serves as part of a trial team that successfully secured multiple favorable jury verdicts finding infringement, patent validity, and a significant royalty rate including a post-verdict enhancement.
Cellulose Material Solutions LLC v. SC Marketing Group, Inc.: Christopher represents SC Marketing Group in patent litigation involving food-grade recyclable thermal insulation packaging products. He helped secure a complete win for SC Marketing Group, with the district finding that the plaintiff’s patent was invalid.
Hologic, Inc. et al v. Minerva Surgical, Inc.: Christopher represented Minerva in a defensive patent damages trial involving an innovative medical device for treating menorrhagia. The trial resulted in a favorable jury verdict for Minerva.
USAA v. Mitek Systems, Inc.: Christopher represented Mitek Systems in patent and trade secret litigation involving mobile check deposit technology. The litigation resulted in a favorable settlement for Mitek.
Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.: Christopher represents Caterpillar in a pending patent litigation involving over a dozen different patents covering road construction and cold planing technology.
Finjan, Inc. v. Qualys Inc.: Christopher represented Qualys in a defensive patent litigation involving cybersecurity software. The litigation resulted in a favorable settlement for the client.
IPS Group, Inc. v. Duncan Solutions, Inc. et al: Christopher represented IPS Group in a patent litigation involving solar-powered, credit card-enabled parking meter devices, where he successfully appealed a lower court claim construction ruling.
Animal Legal Defense Fund et al: Christopher represented several environmental organizations including the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Welfare Institute, Natural Resources Defense Council, Project Coyote, and the Center for Biological Diversity in environmental litigation against multiple California county governments involving animal cruelty. The litigations resulted in multiple favorable settlements requiring the counties to conduct environmental studies on various wildlife management programs.

Matters

Select Matters

Via Transportation, Inc. v. RideCo, Inc.: Christopher represented Via Transportation in a jury trial involving microtransit rideshare technology where both parties asserted patents. He helped secure a complete win for Via, with a jury finding that RideCo infringed Via’s patents and that Via did not infringe RideCo’s patents.
I-Mab Biopharma v. Inhibrix: Christopher represented Inhibrix in a jury trial finding that Inhibrix did not misappropriate I-Mab’s alleged trade secrets. He helped secure a complete defensive verdict for Inhibrix.
DataCore Software Corp. v. Scale Computing Inc.: Christopher represented Scale Computing in a jury trial involving data storage technology. He helped secure a complete defensive verdict of both non-infringement and patent invalidity for Scale.
Cyntec Company Ltd. v. Chilisin Electronics Corp. et al: Christopher represented Cyntec in a jury trial finding Chilisin to have willfully infringed multiple patents involving electronic inductors, which resulted in Cyntec being awarded enhanced (treble) damages and a permanent injunction.
Epistar Corporation v. Lowe’s Home Centers: Christopher represents Epistar in multiple litigation matters involving LED lighting technology. He serves as part of a trial team that successfully secured multiple favorable jury verdicts finding infringement, patent validity, and a significant royalty rate including a post-verdict enhancement.
Cellulose Material Solutions LLC v. SC Marketing Group, Inc.: Christopher represents SC Marketing Group in patent litigation involving food-grade recyclable thermal insulation packaging products. He helped secure a complete win for SC Marketing Group, with the district finding that the plaintiff’s patent was invalid.
Hologic, Inc. et al v. Minerva Surgical, Inc.: Christopher represented Minerva in a defensive patent damages trial involving an innovative medical device for treating menorrhagia. The trial resulted in a favorable jury verdict for Minerva.
USAA v. Mitek Systems, Inc.: Christopher represented Mitek Systems in patent and trade secret litigation involving mobile check deposit technology. The litigation resulted in a favorable settlement for Mitek.
Wirtgen America, Inc. v. Caterpillar Inc.: Christopher represents Caterpillar in a pending patent litigation involving over a dozen different patents covering road construction and cold planing technology.
Finjan, Inc. v. Qualys Inc.: Christopher represented Qualys in a defensive patent litigation involving cybersecurity software. The litigation resulted in a favorable settlement for the client.
IPS Group, Inc. v. Duncan Solutions, Inc. et al: Christopher represented IPS Group in a patent litigation involving solar-powered, credit card-enabled parking meter devices, where he successfully appealed a lower court claim construction ruling.
Animal Legal Defense Fund et al: Christopher represented several environmental organizations including the Animal Legal Defense Fund, Animal Welfare Institute, Natural Resources Defense Council, Project Coyote, and the Center for Biological Diversity in environmental litigation against multiple California county governments involving animal cruelty. The litigations resulted in multiple favorable settlements requiring the counties to conduct environmental studies on various wildlife management programs.

Select Speaking Engagements

Moderator, “Patent Monetization Strategies for Emerging Companies,” Patent Transactions: Unlocking Value From Your Company’s Patent Portfolio, Palo Alto, California, April 2025

Insights

Select Speaking Engagements

Moderator, “Patent Monetization Strategies for Emerging Companies,” Patent Transactions: Unlocking Value From Your Company’s Patent Portfolio, Palo Alto, California, April 2025

Recent Insights

Client Highlights

On March 5, 2026, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati secured a complete jury victory in a patent invalidity trial in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of firm client Cyntec Company, Ltd. Rejecting defendant Chilisin’s arguments on obviousness, the jury found that all asserted claims of Cyntec’s U.S. Patent Nos. 8,922,312 and 9,481,037 were valid. Wilson Sonsini also represented Cyntec in a previous jury trial which had found that Chilisin willfully infringed both patents and imposed a 5 percent royalty.

Learn More

Client Highlights

On January 30, 2025, firm client and microtransit leader Via won a complete victory against its competitor, RideCo, following a seven-day jury trial and years of litigation in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas. After less than 3 hours of deliberation, the jury found that RideCo infringed three of Via’s patents on its virtual bus stop technology (U.S. Patent Nos. 9,562,785, 9,816,824, and 10,197,411) and ordered RideCo to pay damages, with total pretrial and ongoing damages to be determined. Via also prevailed against RideCo’s counterclaims, with the jury finding that Via did not infringe either of RideCo’s two asserted patents.

Learn More

View All

Recent Events

WSGR Events

Please join Wilson Sonsini in Palo Alto on Tuesday, April 22, for insightful discussions on unlocking the value of your patent portfolio, followed by a networking reception. Wilson Sonsini attorneys Jim Yoon, Ryan Smith, and Christopher Mays—alongside a distinguished panel of experts from diverse fields—will share strategies for optimizing your patent portfolio through strategic cross-licensing, license on transfer (LOT), patent pools, patent acquisition, patent divestitures, and patent licensing programs.

Learn More