Our People
Lora Friedemann

Many features of this site require JavaScript. Learn how to enable javascript.

Lora Friedemann

Shareholder

Email: lfriedemann@fredlaw.com
Office: 612.492.7185
Assistant: Katheryn Hanson, 612.492.7651

Download vCard Print Full Bio

PRIMARY SERVICES

Intellectual Property Litigation
Litigation
Advertising, Marketing & Trademark
Intellectual Property
Anti-Counterfeiting

“A seasoned litigator with the most intricate knowledge of civil procedure rules; she puts the right provisions to use expeditiously and efficiently and knows how to play her cards right, whether in a settlement negotiation or jury trial.”

– World Trademark Review 1000

Overview

Lora Friedemann is a trial lawyer focusing on intellectual property cases in federal courts. Clients and colleagues recognize Lora for her extraordinary range of experience and her effective advocacy in trademark, copyright and patent litigation. Lora’s decades-long dedication to federal court practice started when she served as a federal law clerk and continued with service on the Federal Practice Committee, appointment to the Merit Selection Panels that recommend federal magistrate judges, and leadership roles in the Federal Bar Association. Lora uses her extensive knowledge of federal courts to help her clients achieve successful outcomes. Lora is dedicated to client needs and is known for practical, business-focused advice. Lora leads the Intellectual Property Division at the firm.

Experience

REPRESENTATIVE EXPERIENCE

Lora serves as lead counsel for the Estate of Prince Rogers Nelson in litigation concerning the late superstar’s intellectual property assets. A skilled trial lawyer, Lora and her team recently obtained an award of nearly $4,000,000 in damages and attorney’s fees in an arbitration involving the unauthorized use of Prince music.
Lora represented the world’s leading medical products provider in a patent infringement suit against a new market entrant. In the case, Lora and her colleagues protected a patented technology representing $125 million in annual revenue. The case ended in a settlement that prevents the competitor from selling the accused product.
Lora has obtained quick dismissals of patent infringement lawsuits filed by non-practicing entities using motions to dismiss and petitions for inter partes review.
Often retained to protect important brands, Lora defended a large manufacturer in a trademark infringement lawsuit involving the company’s top-selling product. After obtaining a decision dismissing the damages claim, Lora and her team negotiated a settlement that secured her client’s rights in the mark.
Lora defended a Fortune 500 company in a copyright infringement lawsuit in Indiana. After Lora identified numerous obstacles to the plaintiff’s claim, the plaintiff agreed to dismiss the lawsuit.
Lora was a member of the winning trial team in a patent case in the Eastern District of Texas. Our client, a manufacturer of display stands, faced an opponent seeking $65 million in damages. Lora tried the damages portion of the case and convinced the jury to reject the exorbitant amount sought by the plaintiffs.
Lora served as lead counsel in a lawsuit against a knock-off of the iconic SPAM® brand. Lora and her team achieved a favorable settlement that required the opponent to change the design of the accused product.

Articles & Presentations

Using Email Service to Fight Counterfeiters

May 8, 2017

By Lora Friedemann

Malicious counterfeiters often hide their identities, making it impossible to serve them through traditional means.

View Details

Civil Procedure Quiz: What Rule Applies to Motions to Amend Pleadings?

January 18, 2017

By Lora Friedemann

If you read past the title, you are a civil procedure nerd. The answer for you is as easy as two plus two. Rule 15! You can recite the standard in your sleep: “freely given when justice so requires.”

View Details

Is Amazon Liable for Counterfeits?

December 9, 2016

By Lora Friedemann

The maker of the popular Snuggie blanket, Allstar Marketing Group, LLC, sued Amazon for trademark infringement earlier this week, alleging that the online retailer enabled the importation and sale of counterfeit Snuggie blankets.

View Details

Permission Needed For Early Summary Judgment Motion

November 13, 2015

By Lora Friedemann

An early motion for summary judgment can be a useful tool when a claim turns on a question of law and the facts are not in dispute. In other cases, summary judgment is more appropriate after the opponent has had a full opportunity for discovery.

View Details

Accused Infringer Prevails on Laches Defense

October 6, 2015

By Lora Friedemann

If you sit on your rights as a patent owner, you may lose your claims against infringers. Patent owner Dane Technologies recently learned that lesson the hard way.

View Details

Patent Infringement Case Stayed Pending IPR on Some (But Not All) Asserted Claims

August 17, 2015

By Lora Friedemann

Should a patent infringement lawsuit be stayed where an IPR challenges some, but not all, of the asserted claims? Magistrate Judge Hildy Bowbeer grappled with that issue in Oticon A/S v. GN Resound A/S, Case No. 15-cv-2066. Oticon, the patent holder, accused GN Resound of infringing 22 claims in a single patent. GN Resound petitioned for inter partes review. The PTAB instituted review on eighteen claims, but declined to institute review on the remaining four claims.

View Details

Fees Will Be Awarded In Exceptional Patent Case

July 29, 2015

By Lora Friedemann

Octane Fitness, the winner in a six year patent infringement lawsuit, will receive an award of attorney’s fees. In 2014, the case resulted in a change in the legal standard that applies when a prevailing party seeks a finding that a patent case is “exceptional,” allowing the party to seek an award of attorney’s fees.

View Details

How Much Detail is Required in a Claim Chart?

July 8, 2015

By Lora Friedemann

Magistrate Judge Leung considered this question in Stratasys, Inc. v. Microboards Technology, LLC. In the case, Stratasys claims that the H-Series 3D printer sold by Microboards Technology (“Afinia”) infringes various patents.

View Details

Busy, Busy, Busy! Minnesota Handles Heavy and Varied Patent Docket

May 21, 2015

By Lora Friedemann

The District of Minnesota is one of the busiest courts in the nation. The District also carries a greater than average load of patent cases. The Senior Status Judges in the District take a full case load, but do not handle patent cases.

View Details

MN Judge Orders Recall of Accused Products

May 19, 2015

By Lora Friedemann

When should a company facing charges of patent infringement be required to recall the accused products? A recent District of Minnesota decision noted the absence of controlling authority on that question, but ordered a recall nonetheless.

View Details

Minnesota: Land of 10,000 Lakes and Oral Hearings

April 29, 2015

By Lora Friedemann

Many courts have done away with oral argument on motions. The District of Minnesota, however, continues to holds hearings on dispositive and non-dispositive motions.

View Details

Patent Infringement in International Waters

April 18, 2015

By Lora Friedemann

Does the United States Patent Act apply to a U.S. ship in international waters? Judge Montgomery considered this question in M-I Drilling Fluids UK Ltd. v. Dynamic Air Inc., Case No. 14-cv-4857.

View Details

“Chicago Mix:” Generic or Trademark?

March 3, 2015

By Lora Friedemann

The heat is rising in a battle that pits small popcorn manufacturer Candyland, Inc. against industry giants Cornfields and Snyder’s-Lance. The kernel of the argument is the term “Chicago Mix.” Candyland registered the “Chicago Mix” trademark over 20 years ago, and claims that others using the mark are infringers. Cornfields and Snyder’s-Lance disagree, and have asserted that “Chicago mix” is the generic name for a blend of caramel, cheese and butter popcorn.

View Details

The “AIA Pause Button” for “CBM” Review: Now Functional in Minnesota

March 13, 2014

By Lora Friedemann and Nikola L. Datzov

A three year old patent suit has been stayed pending review in the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. The stay is the first granted in the District of Minnesota since the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act created a new procedure for challenging Covered Business Method patents. When granting the stay, the Court expressed “grave doubts” about the validity of the patents.

View Details

PUBLICATIONS & PRESENTATIONS

Presenter, “The Year in Review for Minnesota IP Litigation,” MIPLA Stampede, May 2018
Quoted in “Atty Who Missed Deposition in Prince TM Spat Told To Comply,” Law360, February 22, 2018
Moderator, “Fake vs. Real: Anti-Counterfeiting Strategies to Protect Your Brand,” Fredrikson & Byron Anti-Counterfeiting Seminar, November 30, 2017
Quoted in “Lengthy Legal Battle Continues Over Five Unreleased Prince Songs,” Star Tribune, July 28, 2017
Quoted in “Judge Blocks Release of Unpublished Prince Songs,” MPR News, April 20, 2017
Presenter, “Year in Review for Minnesota IP Litigation,” MIPLA Stampede, June 2016
Presenter, “Legal Project Management: A New Way of Managing Matters,” MNACCA Lunch and Learn, October 2014
Quoted in “Small tech firm wins a round in lawsuit against Microsoft,” Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal, January 28, 2014
Panelist, “Project Management for Law Firms 2014: Tools and Approaches to Implement Legal Project Management,” PLI, January 23, 2014

Honors & Education

EDUCATION

University of Minnesota Law School, J.D., 1995, magna cum laude
University of Minnesota, B.A., Journalism, 1991, summa cum laude

BAR ADMISSIONS

Minnesota, 1995
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, 1995
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, 1997
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, 2000
U.S. Supreme Court, 2018

HONORS

Minnesota 500, The Most Powerful Business Leaders in Minnesota, Minnesota Monthly, 2020
Designated a Recommended Advisor, Minnesota, IP Law Experts – 2019/2020
The Best Lawyers in America, Litigation – Intellectual Property, 2018-present
Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America (membership by invitation only)
IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals, 2015-2020
World Trademark Review 1000 – Ranked as a leading trademark attorney, 2014 and 2016-2020
Minnesota Super Lawyers, Super Lawyer – Intellectual Property Litigation, 2019-present
Minnesota State Bar Association, North Star Lawyer, 2016
Chambers USA: America’s Leading Lawyers for Business
U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, Distinguished Pro Bono Service Award, 2010

Professional Activities

PROFESSIONAL ACTIVITIES

Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Panels, 2010, 2013 and 2018
Implementation and Leadership for Federal Pro Se Project, 2011
President, Federal Bar Association, Minnesota Chapter, 2009-2010
Board of Directors, Federal Bar Association, Minnesota Chapter, 2001-2012
Federal Practice Committee, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, 2006-2009
Founder and Chair, IP Litigation Group, Federal Bar Association, Minnesota Chapter, 2005
Clerk, Judge John R. Tunheim, U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, 1998