Christopher Holding is a partner in Goodwin’s Antitrust and Competition practice, Litigation department and is a member of the firm’s Life Sciences Disputes group. Christopher has particular expertise in issues involving the intersection of antitrust and intellectual property. He has litigated cases in federal and state courts throughout the country and defended federal and state investigations.

Christopher’s practice has been deeply immersed in the competition issues at the forefront of the pharmaceutical industry. In addition, he has represented clients on competition issues in industries ranging from health care devices to waste disposal to financial services. Christopher regularly counsels clients on competition issues relating to pricing, including resale price maintenance, minimum advertised price programs, distribution agreements, and Internet pricing. In addition, he routinely advises clients on competition issues with respect to the licensing of IP rights. Christopher’s practice includes litigating competition issues in patent cases, including damages and injunction issues.





Antitrust Litigation

  • In re HIV Antitrust Litigation (N.D.Cal.): Representing Teva in litigation challenging the settlement of patent litigation between Teva and Gilead concerning generic versions of the HIV medications Viread®, Atripla® and Truvada® based on allegations that purported “reverse payments” delayed generic entry.
  • Mylan v. Teva et al. (D.N.J.): Representing Teva in defending several cases pending in the District of New Jersey raising antitrust, Lanham Act, RICO, and other claims in relation to Teva’s branded multiple sclerosis product, Copaxone®.
  • Confidential Arbitration (AAA): Represented brand pharmaceutical company in dispute raising claims for antitrust, breach of contract, and patent misuse related to license and supply agreements.
  • In re Intuniv Antitrust Litigation (D.Mass.): Represented Actavis in defense of private antitrust litigation based on claims of “reverse payment” patent settlement.
  • LBE v. BarBri et al. (2d Cir.): Represented bar review provider in case alleging collusion with leading law schools to exclude rival course provider. Obtained dismissal with prejudice; affirmed on appeal.
  • Sergeants Benevolent Ass’n v. Actavis et al. (S.D.N.Y.) (Namenda): Represented Teva in defense of private antitrust litigation based on challenge to patent settlement agreements.
  • FTC v. AbbVie and Teva (E.D.Pa) (Androgel/fenofibrate): Represented Teva in defense of antitrust lawsuit filed by Federal Trade Commission alleging that agreements between AbbVie and Teva settling litigation concerning generic AndroGel and providing Teva supply of fenofibrate constitute a “reverse payment” under the Supreme Court’s 2013 Actavis decision.
  • Abbott v. Teva (D. Del.) (TriCor): Represented Teva as plaintiff in precedent-setting antitrust challenge to the strategic use of life cycle management “product hopping” strategies to delay generic competition. Litigated through trial and settlement.

Patent Litigation

  • GSK v. Teva (D.Del.) (Coreg): Representing Teva in defense of patent infringement and damages claims following “at risk” launch of generic carvedilol. Leading damages defense. Tried case to jury and won JMOL decision setting aside verdict.
  • Otsuka v. Teva (D.N.J.) (Abilify): Defeated TRO, clearing way for Teva and other generic companies to launch generic aripiprazole.

  • Wyeth v. Teva (D.N.J.) (Protonix): Represented Teva in defense of patent infringement and damages claims following “at risk” launch of generic pantoprazole. Tried damages case to jury prior to settlement.

  • In re Rituxumab Patent Litigation (D.N.J.): Represented Teva and Celltrion in defense of patent litigation about biosimilar product. Led defense of irreparable harm issues for PI prior to settlement.

Licensing Disputes

  • Shionogi v. Andrx et al. (N.Y.Sup.Ct.) (Fortamet): Representing Actavis as defendant in litigation seeking injunctive relief and damages in connection with a license and supply agreement concerning Fortamet.
  • Teva v. Shire (S.D.N.Y.) (Adderall XR): Represented Teva as plaintiff in litigation seeking injunctive relief and specific performance in connection with supply agreement between Teva and Shire concerning generic Adderall XR. Also represented Teva as intervenor in subsequent related litigation instituted by Impax against Shire.

FDA Litigation & Regulatory Matters

  • Apotex v. Alcon (S.D. Ind.) (Olopatadine): Represented Barr as intervenor-defendant in declaratory judgment action by Apotex seeking to force a forfeiture of Barr’s first-filer exclusivity. Won dismissal of action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, allowing Barr to launch product with exclusivity.
  • Otsuka v. FDA (D.Md.) (Abilify): Represented Teva as intervenor-defendant in litigation challenging FDA’s decision that Otsuka’s pediatric exclusivity did not block approval of ANDAs for generic aripiprazole. Successfully defeated TRO and won summary judgment.

Amicus Briefs for Generic Pharmaceuticals Association

  • FTC v. Actavis (Supreme Court): Filed certiorari and merits briefs arguing against use of per se or “quick look” standards for evaluating patent settlement agreements.
  • In re Wellbutrin Antitrust Litigation (Third Circuit): Filed brief addressing legal and evidentiary standards for causation and antitrust injury in private actions challenging settlement agreements.
Professional Activities

Christopher is a member of the American and Boston Bar Associations. He currently serves as a trustee of the Episcopal Divinity School at Union Theological Seminary in New York.

Professional Experience

From October 1998 through April 1999, Christopher served as a special assistant district attorney in the Middlesex County (MA) District Attorney’s Office, where he prosecuted crimes and successfully litigated several jury trials.


Christopher was recognized as a national Litigation Star for his work in Competition/Antitrust by Benchmark Litigation 2023.

Christopher has been recognized by The Best Lawyers in America Best Lawyers for his work in Litigation - Antitrust 2023. Benchmark Litigation recognizes Christopher as a 2021-2022 Litigation Star in Massachusetts for his work in Competition/Antitrust. Christopher has been consistently recognized in Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business, where clients have described him as "a big-picture thinker and a fantastic advocate” and “an absolute pleasure” to work with. Christopher has also been recognized by The Legal 500 United States, Benchmark Litigation, and Global Competition Review’s GCR 100.

In The News









JD, 1994
Harvard Law School

(magna cum  laude)

BA, 1988
Princeton University

(summa cum laude)


1994 to 1995 Connecticut Supreme Court, Honorable Ellen A. Peters





U.S. Supreme Court
U.S. Court of Appeals for the First Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts
U.S. District Court of Connecticut
Profile Image
Get In Touch
Our clients rely on us for world-class advisory services, counsel on complex transactional work and high-stakes litigation. Specializing in matters involving the financial, life sciences, private equity, real estate, and technology industries, we use a collaborative, cross-disciplinary approach to resolve our clients’ most challenging issues. To find out more, please contact us.


Nos équipes interviennent aux côtés de nos clients, industriels, fonds d’investissement, startups, institutions financières et dirigeants, dans le cadre de transactions et de contentieux complexes, et apportent des conseils de tout premier plan dans les secteurs financiers, des Sciences de la Vie, du Private Equity, de l’immobilier et des technologies. Nous traitons les dossiers juridiques de manière intègre, ingénieuse, souple et audacieuse pour répondre efficacement aux enjeux propres à chacun de nos clients, quels que soient la taille de l’opération et le secteur d’activité. Pour en savoir plus, contactez-nous.

Unsere Kunden verlassen sich auf unsere erstklassige Beratung, vor allem im Hinblick auf komplexe Transaktionen und High-Stakes-Prozesse. Spezialisiert auf Angelegenheiten der Finanz-, Life-Sciences-, Private-Equity-, Immobilien-und Technologie-Branchen, verwenden wir einen kooperativen und interdisziplinären Ansatz, um Fragen unserer Kunden auch in extremen Spezialsituationen einer Lösung zuzuführen. Sie wollen mehr erfahren? Kontaktieren Sie uns gerne.

Search Other Lawyers
Recherche par Pratique