Introduction

Grant is a shareholder in Fredrikson’s Intellectual Property Litigation and Commercial Litigation groups, where he focuses on litigating complex patent and trade secret cases. He is an experienced trial lawyer and handles litigation from start to finish, from early case assessment to appeals.

Grant’s practice is truly national. In addition to Minnesota, he frequently litigates in patent litigation hotbeds like California, Delaware, Florida, and Texas. Beyond his extensive trial court practice, he regularly appears in cases before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals.

Grant believes that litigation is a means to an end, not an end in itself. It is a business tool that, if used properly, can help a client’s bottom line. As a result, he tailors his litigation strategy to achieve his client’s business objectives.

Education

• Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 2003, cum laude
• University of Wisconsin, B.A., Economics and History, 2000

Bar Admissions

• Minnesota, 2003
• U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, 2003
• U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit, 2004
• U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit, 2009
• United States Supreme Court, 2012

Practice Areas

• Litigation
• Intellectual Property Litigation
• Non-Competes & Trade Secrets

Representative Experience

Intellectual Property Litigation:

• Grant and his team brought a lawsuit in the District of Minnesota against a foreign competitor and its United States distributor for infringing a patent covering agricultural heating devices. His opponents attempted to move the case to the distributer’s home state, but Grant defeated that motion and ultimately convinced the competitor and distributor to redesign the accused product.
• Grant and his team brought a lawsuit in the District of Minnesota against a competitor for infringing a patent covering coating compositions for eyeglasses. After Grant’s team moved for a preliminary injunction, his opponent agreed to stop selling the product and stipulated to a permanent injunction. The opponent subsequently violated the injunction, and Grant and his team successfully pursued contempt proceedings.
• Grant and his team brought a lawsuit in the Middle District of Florida against a competitor for infringing a medical device patent covering disposable sheaths for flexible endoscopes. Grant’s team was able to convince the opponent to stop selling the accused product at an early stage, before the claim construction hearing.
• Grant was a member of a successful trial team in a patent infringement case in the Eastern District of Texas. The client, a leading manufacturer of computer display stands, and its downstream customers faced an opponent who was seeking nearly $200 million in damages and attorney’s fees. Grant’s trial team convinced the jury to reject that exorbitant amount.
• Grant and his team defended co-owners of a patent relating to reactors for ethanol plants against a declaratory judgment action brought by a competitor in the District of Idaho. The competitor sought to invalidate the clients’ patent. Grant and his team successfully moved the Court to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of personal jurisdiction.
• Grant and his team defended a software company and its new employee in a trade secret case brought by a former employer in the Southern District of Florida. Grant’s opponent contended that the new employee misappropriated the opponent’s confidential information by revealing it to the client. Grant’s team positioned the case for transfer to the District of Minnesota by successfully arguing that the Florida court lacked personal jurisdiction over the employee. Meanwhile, Grant and the client gathered evidence showing that no misappropriation had occurred. Faced with this evidence and the likelihood that the case would move to Minnesota, Grant’s opponent dropped the lawsuit.

• Grant served as lead trial counsel in a consumer fraud case. During a bench trial, Grant successfully proved that his opponent overcharged the client by 50%. The Court found Grant’s opponent liable and awarded the client compensatory damages, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages.
• Grant served as lead trial counsel for a client who was accused of defrauding a purchaser in a real estate transaction. During a bench trial, Grant convinced the Court that the client had not been aware of any defects with the real estate when she sold the property. The Court found for Grant’s client and denied the purchaser any damages.
• Grant and his team defended a real estate developer against breach of contract claims brought by a home builder. During a bench trial, Grant and his team successfully proved that the client had not breached the contract with the home builder. As a result, the Court found that the client was not liable.
• Grant and his team defended a public company in two class action lawsuits brought by its shareholders. The shareholders alleged that the company’s proposed merger would undervalue the company’s stock. The Court dismissed both suits at the initial pleading stage.
• On behalf of a pro bono client, Grant and his team petitioned the Minnesota Court of Appeals to review a city council’s decision to revoke his client’s food truck license. Grant successfully argued that the council violated the client’s due process rights by failing to give adequate notice of the grounds for the council’s revocation. The Court agreed and reversed the city council’s decision. Ponce v. City of St. Paul, 2007 WL 2769677 (Minn. Ct. App. 2007).

Selected Publications & Presentations

• Speaker, “Defending Against Patent Infringement Claims from Non-Practicing Entities,” LES Minnesota Chapter Meeting, January 2012
• “The Inequitable Conduct Defense in Patent Infringement Cases: After Therasense,” FredALERT: Intellectual Property, July 2011
• Presenter, “Patents v. Trade Secrets – Which is Right for Your Company's Protection?,” Fredrikson & Byron Non-Competes & Trade Secrets Seminar, March 3, 2011
• “The Inequitable Conduct Defense in Patent Infringement Cases: Before Therasense,” FredALERT: Intellectual Property, October 2010
• Speaker, “Covering Your Assets in the Age of Employee Mobility – Steps Employers Can Take To Keep Trade Secrets a Secret,” Fredrikson & Byron Trade Secrets Seminar, February 17, 2010

Professional Activities

• American Bar Association (ABA)
• American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA)
• Federal Bar Association (FBA)
• Minnesota Intellectual Property Law Association (MIPLA)
• Minnesota State Bar Association (MSBA)

Honors & Distinctions

• Omicron Delta Epsilon Economics Honors Society, University of Wisconsin

Community Involvement

• MSBA Professionalism Committee – Committee Member
• Minnesota Sinfonia - Board Member and Former Chairman of the Board
• Volunteer Lawyers Network (VLN) – Volunteer at Hennepin County Civil Forms Workshop