Malicious counterfeiters often hide their identities, making it impossible to serve them through traditional means.
Assistant: Katheryn Hanson, 612.492.7651
“Federal court judges are repeatedly impressed by the ease and eloquence with which [Lora] builds her arguments around complex theoretical concepts.”
– World Trademark Review 1000, 2018
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.
- 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
January 18, 2017
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.”
December 9, 2016
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.
November 13, 2015
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.
October 6, 2015
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.
August 17, 2015
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.
July 29, 2015
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.
July 8, 2015
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.
May 21, 2015
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.
May 19, 2015
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.
April 29, 2015
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.
April 18, 2015
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.
March 3, 2015
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.
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.
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
- University of Minnesota Law School, J.D., 1995, magna cum laude
- University of Minnesota, B.A., Journalism, 1991, summa cum laude
- 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
- 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
- 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