Christopher Renk

I'll research this attorney's professional background before drafting.

Let me dig into notable case outcomes and PTAB work.

Let me verify the firm move, PTAB volume, and case outcomes.

Christopher J. Renk — Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer (Chicago)

Focus areas. Renk is a first-chair IP trial and appellate litigator whose docket skews mechanical/electromechanical and consumer-products patent work rather than pharma or standards-based wireless litigation. Firm and directory profiles describe matters spanning computer software, consumer electronics, electrical controls, internet content delivery, medical and surgical devices, heat transfer, contact lenses, fuel injection systems, athletic footwear and textile processing, plus a substantial design-patent practice (Chambers USA; IAM Patent 1000; Arnold & Porter bio). He is also active on the trademark/trade dress side — including the Converse ITC and district court trade dress litigation against Walmart and Skechers — so his patent work sits within a broader IP enforcement practice rather than a pure patent shop.

Side preference. The tracked data shows one appearance, on the plaintiff side (Nike, Inc. v. New Balance, D. Mass., as Counsel for Nike), and no defendant-side appearances. That is consistent with the public record on his most visible matters, where he serves as lead counsel for Nike as both patent plaintiff and patent owner in PTAB proceedings. His own bio states he has represented both plaintiffs and defendants as lead and co-counsel, so the plaintiff-heavy tracked figure likely reflects a single-case sample rather than a strict NPE/PAE or defense-side orientation.

Firm context. Renk is a partner in Arnold & Porter's Chicago office, which he joined in August 2020 along with Michael J. Harris and Helen Minsker from the IP boutique Banner & Witcoff, where he had spent roughly 32 years (Law.com/Westlaw Career Tracker; CDR). His PTAB filings continued uninterrupted through the move — mandatory notices in IPR2013-00067 were updated in August 2020 to reflect his new firm while he remained Nike's lead counsel.

Notable matters and outcomes. His most prominent tracked case is Nike, Inc. v. New Balance Athletics, Inc. (D. Mass., No. 1:23-cv-12666), filed November 2023, asserting Nike's "Flyknit" knit-to-shape footwear patents against New Balance; Renk appeared pro hac vice for Nike. The court denied New Balance's motion to dismiss (Aug. 2024) but granted a stay pending IPR (June 2025), and the case has remained largely stayed pending resolution of related PTAB and Federal Circuit proceedings. In the parallel Nike v. lululemon litigation (S.D.N.Y.), Nike won a jury verdict of $355,450 in March 2024, which the district court later vacated and held the asserted '749 patent invalid for obviousness (Mar. 31, 2026). On the appellate side, he was on the Arnold & Porter team for Nike in Nike, Inc. v. lululemon athletica Canada Inc. (Fed. Cir. Nos. 2024-2074 and 2024-2134), where the court affirmed PTAB decisions holding Nike's '484 and '413 patents unpatentable (May and Aug. 2026), and appeal No. 2026-1275 was voluntarily dismissed. Earlier, IAM credited him with obtaining a preliminary injunction for Nike against a Chinese company for design-patent infringement.

PTAB/IPR experience. Yes — this is a significant part of his practice. He appears as lead counsel for Nike as patent owner in numerous IPRs, including the lululemon challenges (IPR2023-00180, -00438, -01460, IPR2024-00460) and Skechers petitions (e.g., IPR2025-00150), and previously in adidas AG v. Nike (IPR2013-00067) and IPR2021-00160. The public outcomes in this family have gone against his client at the Board and on appeal, though the proceedings have largely succeeded in staying the parallel district court cases.

Bar and education. Registered patent attorney (Reg. No. 33,761); admitted in Illinois (1988), Minnesota, and D.C., and before the Federal Circuit, several regional circuits, and the U.S. Supreme Court. J.D., University of Minnesota (1988); B.S., Iowa State University.

Caveat: the one-case tracked figure is a small sample relative to his actual portfolio (Law360's attorney page lists roughly 32 matters), and directory descriptions of his technology experience come from firm-supplied profiles rather than independently verified dockets.