Many features of this site require JavaScript. Learn how to enable javascript.
Email: lmyers@fredlaw.com
Office: 612.492.7295
Assistant: Cassie Buresh, 612.492.7812
Intellectual Property Litigation
Intellectual Property
Advertising, Marketing & Trademark
Litigation
Laura is a trial lawyer with over a decade of experience in all aspects of intellectual property litigation, from pre-suit investigation to appellate review.
Laura’s practice focuses on trademark and patent disputes in federal courts as well as trademark disputes before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board. Laura also has experience litigating trade secret, false advertising, and copyright claims. Laura is very efficient and offers practical advice to help clients successfully resolve complex disputes.
May 8, 2017
In M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Inc., Chief Judge Tunheim recently adopted the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Bowbeer, finding the case to be exceptional and awarding attorneys’ fees against Plaintiff M-I.
January 9, 2017
In Solutran, Inc. v. Elavon, Inc. and U.S. Bancorp, Magistrate Judge Thorson recently granted the defendants’ motion to compel the production of three slides in a PowerPoint presentation that plaintiff claimed were protected by attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine. Plaintiff initially produced the entire presentation, which included a section discussing patent litigation. The slides in that section were drafted by plaintiff’s attorneys and included the law firm’s logo. When the presentation was used in a deposition, plaintiff immediately clawed it back and subsequently produced a new version with the three slides at issue redacted.
November 4, 2015
On October 19, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in two cases in which patent owners are challenging the Federal Circuit’s rigid standard for proving willful infringement. In their petitions, both patent owners compared the current test for enhanced damages to the Federal Circuit’s old test for attorney’s fees, which the Supreme Court tossed out last year in Octane Fitness LLC v. ICON Health & Fitness, Inc.
August 17, 2015
In May, the District of Minnesota ordered the parties in a patent case to meet and confer to try to reach an agreement regarding the deadline by which the patentee must reduce the number of asserted claims.
June 4, 2015
Patent holders bringing infringement suits sometimes unnecessarily assert that a competitor infringes an unreasonable number of patent claims. Courts have the authority and discretion to reasonably limit the number of asserted claims in order to combat potential abuse. When that reduction should occur is less certain.
May 1, 2015
Magistrate Judge Bowbeer recently granted Plaintiff Polaris Industries Inc.’s motion for a protective order preventing testimony on a Rule 30(b)(6) topic relating to disputed prior art.
June 30, 2014
The United States Supreme Court recently confirmed the long-standing law regarding inducement of infringement in their decision in Limelight Networks, Inc. v. Akamai Technologies, Inc. Patent holders should read more for an analysis of the decision.
March 27, 2014
On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court decided the relevant test for determining if a plaintiff has standing to sue for false advertising in the case of Lexmark Int’l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc.
