Christopher Tehrani


Christopher Tehrani. Photo.

Christopher is a Stockholm based Partner and a seasoned trial attorney with focus on IPR litigation and in particular regarding patents, trade secrets and trademarks. He frequently advises clients in a wide range of industries and his experience includes extensive work with numerous high value pan-European litigations relating to pharmaceuticals, telecom and medical devices. He also advises Life Sciences clients on regulatory issues. Furthermore, he regularly assists clients on issues relating to market law, drafting and negotiating of various license agreements as well as on general strategies for commercialization of IP.

Christopher has been practicing law since 2008 and joined Schjødt in 2022. His previous experience includes work at other law firms as well as a junior judgeship at the Stockholm Patent and Market Court. He is recognized as a leading Intellectual Property attorney and patent litigation star by numerous prestigious ranking institutes such as Managing IP, Legal 500, IAM Patent 1000 and WTR 1000.

Christopher is a registered representative authorized to represent clients before the Unified Patent Court (UPC)

Christopher is the Swedish appointed expert on AIPPI’s international Standing Committee on Patents. He is also member of the Board of Directors of the Swedish Anti-Counterfeiting Group (SACG).


  • 2022

    "Christopher Tehrani is a humble genius and an excellent IP litigator, and specialised in international cases" - Legal 500,
  • 2022

    "Tehrani is an exceptional patent litigator whose impeccable skillset seamlessly crosses over into the trademark sphere." - WTR 1000


  • 2008

    Masters of Law, Lund University
  • 2003

    Bachelor of Commerce, McGill University


  • 2022

    Legal 500 Patent Litigation Comparitive Guide Sweden
  • 2022

    Lexology Guide Trade Secrets in Sweden
  • 2022

    Lexology Guide Licensing in Sweden
  • 2022

    Wolters Kluwer White Paper:Preparing for the Unitary Patent
  • 2020

    SwedenBIO IP protection vs. public health interests