Meredith Martin Addy

president & co-founder

Federal Circuit Appellate Attorney Meredith Martin Addy

Meredith "MIMI" Martin Addy, J.D, M.B.A., LL.M.

Meredith Addy, co-founder of AddyHart LLC., is a deeply experienced intellectual property litigator who specializes in cases before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, in the federal district courts, in the Court of Federal Claims, and at the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board. Addy has handled over 90 federal district court cases and more than 100 appeals to the Federal Circuit.

Experienced in protecting and monetizing corporate intellectual asset portfolios, Addy has spent her career litigating for and counseling high-profile companies in the software, technology, biotechnology, and pharmaceutical industries. She develops and executes strategies to achieve the most efficient approach to realizing her clients’ IP goals. Her clients describe her as “an exceptionally skilled lawyer” and a “key figure, who knows the courts inside and out,” adding that she is “extremely pro-business. She really understands business and how it’s run.” (Chambers USA).

Practicing in today’s highly complex technical environment, Addy has an innate ability to explain complex legal and technical issues to jurists and laypeople alike – an ability that in part depends on her training as an electrical engineer.

When you ask Addy a difficult question, as we often do in oral arguments, she fires right back with a very crisp, clear answer that is totally responsive to the question. And it’s factual and accurate and fair. The contrast with other attorneys is stark. Most other attorneys duck the questions. Addy answers them head-on.

Chief Judge Paul R. Michel (Ret.)U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

Addy has held high management positions at AmLaw100 firms and IP boutiques, including serving as office managing partner of the Chicago office of an AmLaw100 firm; serving as chair of the national patent litigation practice at another AmLaw100 firm; and serving as chair of the national appellate practice at one of the nation’s largest IP law firms. She has also served on firms’ Executive Committees and Boards of Directors.

Addy served on the Federal Circuit’s Advisory Council for ten years and was a co-founder and the first president of the Richard Linn American Inn of Court, directed to intellectual property. She also served on the Board of Directors for the Federal Circuit Bar Association and as chair and co-chair of the Amicus Committees for the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) and the Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago (IPLAC).

Meredith Addy is unique as a lawyer. She understands the ramifications of the matters at hand. She is strategic, informed, and willing to take good risks. At oral argument, she is persuasive, polished and professional, and she is very easy to work with.

Jeff Salmon, Attorney – Jeffrey W. Salmon Law Firm
Wildcat Licensing WI, LLC
Member, Board of Advisors, XiFi Smart Networks Pvt. Ltd.

In addition to her extensive trial and appellate practice, Addy has been retained as a patent law expert in matters involving legal malpractice and complex patent disputes. In that capacity, she has analyzed and opined on issues including patent prosecution and litigation standards of care, claim construction, patent validity and enforceability, and procedural and substantive aspects of patent litigation practice. She has provided expert reports and has testified at deposition and at trial, drawing on decades of experience.

Over the course of her more than 30-year career in intellectual property law, Addy has also been appointed by federal courts to serve as both a Special Master under F.R.C.P. § 706 and as a Court-Appointed Expert under F.R.C.P. § 53. In these court-appointed roles, Addy has advised district courts on a wide range of issues arising in technically sophisticated patent cases, including discovery management, claim construction, patent validity, summary judgment, pretrial proceedings, and trial. Her court appointments have spanned technologies ranging from encryption and database security to guided vehicles and medical devices, reflecting the judiciary’s trust in her judgment, technical fluency, and command of patent law.

Addy created and writes the blog Business De Novo, to generate conversations around the business of innovation and the importance of protecting it. She was a perennial editor of Claim Construction in the Federal Circuit, a publication of West LegalWorks, and is a frequent speaker at legal and industry events. She teaches CLE-credit courses on patent litigation, and has written numerous articles and publications. Addy earned her B.S. in electrical engineering at Rice University, her J.D. at the University of Georgia Law School, and her M.B.A. from the University of Chicago’s Booth School.

representative cases before the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal Appellate Courts

  • LG Electronics v. Invention Investment Fund I (Del. Sup. Ct.) Represent cross-appellee on appeal of licensing decision related to scop of licensed patent portfolio on audio infortainment systems.
  • Berkeley *IEOR v Teradata Operations, Inc. (Fed. Cir.) Represent appellant Berkeley on appeal from adverse decision of the N.D. of Illinois on patents relating operating of a relational database system to generate object-level profitability.
  • Mozido, Inc. v. Apple (Fed. Cir.). Represent appellant patentee on multiple appeals from PTAB decisions relating to patents on digital wallet technology.
  • PerDiemCo LLC v. NexTraq LLC (Fed. Cir.) Represent appellant patentee on multiple appeals from Rule 12 dismissal holding the fourteen asserted patents, relating to geofencing and electronic logging technology, failed to satisfy 35 U.S.C § 101.
  • Fintiv, Inc. v. PayPal Holdings, Inc. (Fed. Cir.). Represent appellant patentee on multiple appeals of an adverse decision from the W.D. Texas and from the PTAB on patents relating to digital wallet technology.
  • Wilco Marsh Buggies Inc. v. Weeks Marine, Inc. (Fed. Cir.). Represent appellant on adverse decision on summary judgment relating to specialized dredging machinery.
  • Google LLC v. Sonos, Inc. (Fed. Cir.). Represent U.S. Inventors for Jobs as amicus curiae on appeal of a district court decision implementing patent laches.
  • Swarm Technology LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc. (Fed. Cir). Represented appellant patentee on appeal of adverse decision of the PTAB on a patent pertaining to system architecture.
  • Juniper Networks, Inc. v. Swarm Technology LLC (Fed. Cir.). Represented appellee patentee on two appeals of two successful decisions of the PTAB on patents pertaining to system architecture.
  • Fintiv, Inc. v. Apple Inc. (Fed. Cir.). Represented appellant patentee on appeal of a decision of the W.D. of Texas finding non-infringement on summary judgment, where the accused device is the Apple Wallet.
  • Jump Rope Systems LLC v. Coulter Ventures LLC d/b/a Rogue Fitness (S. Ct. 2022). Represented Fair Inventing Fund—a nonprofit inventor advocacy organization—as amicus curiae in support of Jump Rope’s petition for certiorari, asking the US Supreme Court to narrow its application of collateral estoppel in patent cases.
  • Cooperative Entertainment, Inc. v. Kollective Technology, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022). Represented appellant on decision from N.D. Cal. dismissing our client’s patent relating to peer-to-peer content distribution as not satisfying 35 U.S.C. §101.
  • Wildcat Licensing WI LLC v. Atlas Copco and Assembly Systems, LLC, General Motors, LLC, Faurecia Automotive Seating, LLC and Magna Int’l Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022). Represented appellant on appeal of a decision where the PTAB invalidated two Reissue patents related to automotive component manufacturing.
  • Sisvel International S.A. v. Cradlepoint Inc., Dell Inc., Sierra Wireless, Inc. Thales DIS AIS Deutschland GmbH, ZTE Corp., & ZTE (USA) Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2022). Represented appellee Thales DIS AIS in five appeals from successful inter partes reviews where the PTAB struck down the challenged claims relating to wireless solutions in cellular 3G systems.
  • Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A. v. Honeywell Int’l. Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2020). Represented appellant on appeal of a decision of the PTAB upholding a patent related to hydrofluorocarbons (HFO) refrigerants in automobile air-conditioning systems. Settled.
  • Honeywell Int’l. Inc. v. Mexichem Amanco Holding S.A. (Fed. Cir. 2020). Represented appellee on two appeals of PTAB decisions invalidating patents related to HFO refrigerants used in air-conditioning systems. Settled.
  • RideApp, Inc. v. Lyft, Inc., 20-1284 (Fed. Cir. 2020). Represented appellant on appeal of a summary judgment decision relating to section 112 indefiniteness regarding mobile applications for location tracking and ride hailing systems.
  • In re Fatigue Fracture Tech. (Fed. Cir. 2020). Represented patent owner on appeal of an adverse decision at the PTAB on an ex parte reexamination filed on a patent related to automotive equipment.
  • Navistar Inc. v. Fatigue Fracture Tech. (Fed. Cir. 2019). Represented patent owner on appeal of an adverse decision at the PTAB in an inter partes review filed on a patent related to automotive manufacturing process.
  • Shure Incorporated v. Clear One, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2019). Represented patent challenger on appeal of an adverse PTAB decision relating to beamforming in microphones.
  • Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative (S. Ct. 2019). Represented amicus curiae in certiorari petition regarding Federal Circuit’s treatment of diagnostics under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
  • Sophos v. RPost (Fed. Cir. 2019). Represented appellant on appeal of a fee decision.
  • DiStefano Patent Trust III v. LinkedIn Corporation (Fed. Cir. 2019). Represented patentee on appeal of a district court dismissal under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
  • Athena Diagnostics v. Mayo Collaborative (Fed. Cir. 2018). Represented amicus curiae in brief requesting the court revisit the 35 U.S.C. § 101 decision en banc.
  • Sophos v. RPost (Fed. Cir. 2018). Represented patentee on appeal of an adverse district court validity decision.
  • TC Heartland LLC v. Kraft Foods Group Brands LLC (S. Ct. 2017). Represented American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) as amicus curiae on writ of certiorari about proper interpretation of patent venue statute 28 U.S.C. § 1400(b).
  • RecogniCorp, LLC. v. Nintendo Co., Ltd. (S. Ct. 2017). Represented Raymond A. Mercado Ph.D. and Inventor Groups as amici curiae on petition for writ of certiorari in case about the proper application of 35 U.S.C. § 101.
  • Evolutionary Intelligence v. Sprint Nextel et al. (Fed. Cir. 2017). Represented patentee on petition for writ of certiorari in case about the scope of analysis when determining patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
  • Synopsys v. Mentor Graphics (S. Ct. 2017). Represented Intellectual Property Law Association of Chicago as amicus curiae on petition for writ of certiorari in case about the scope of analysis when determining patent-eligible subject matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
  • Elbit Sys. Am. v. Thales Visionix, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017). Represented defense contractor-patentee Thales Visionix as appellee on appeal from a favorable decision of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board holding that specific claims of its patents were not invalid based on prior art.
  • In re Openings dba Total Door (Fed. Cir. 2017). Represented appellant manufacturer of industrial doors on appeal of an adverse decision of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board that its proposed mark is functional.
  • Thales Visionix, Inc. v. Elbit Systems, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2017). Represented appellant defense contractor on successful appeal reversing the decision from the Court of Federal Claims that its patent was not valid as covering patent-ineligible subject-matter under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
  • HTC v. IPCom (Fed. Cir. 2016). Represented patentee on appeal of an adverse decision by the PTAB that its mobile technology patent is not valid.
  • Zoltek Corp. v. U.S. (Fed. Cir. 2016). Represented materials company on successful appeal of an adverse decision of the Court of Federal Claims that its patent on carbon fiber was not valid.
  • Continental Automotive Systems U.S., Inc. v. Schrader-Bridgeport International, Inc. (Fed. Cir. 2014). Represented international automotive company on appeal from adverse decision of the PTAB.
  • Industrial Technology Research v. ITC (Fed. Cir. 2013). Represented international electronics company on appeal from final determination of the U.S. International Trade Commission that patents are not infringed. Case was affirmed.
  • Allergan, Inc. v. Apotex (Fed. Cir. 2013). Represented pharmaceutical company in appealing a district court decision finding infringement and validity of patents covering Latisse® treatment for thinning eyelashes.
  • AstraZeneca v. Sandoz (Fed. Cir. 2013). Represented pharmaceutical company in appeal of trial court determination that patents on Pulmicort Respules®, generic budesonide, are either invalid or not infringed.
  • Randall Mfg. v. Rea (Fed. Cir. 2013). Represented manufacturing company in successful reversal of adverse reexamination determination by USPTO.
  • Iris Corporation v. Japan Airlines Int’l Co., Ltd. (Fed. Cir. 2014). Represented airline as appellee from judgment of noninfringement involving method for manufacturing e-passports. Case decided favorably for client.
  • Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz (Fed. Cir. 2009) (partially en banc). Successfully represented Sandoz on appeal resolving a long-standing Federal Circuit split on infringement of product-by-process claims. The Court ruled in favor of our client that the asserted product-by-process claims were not infringed, and resolved en banc the longstanding conflict, holding that product-by-process claims cannot be infringed by “products made by processes other than the one claimed.”

 

representative cases in trial courts

  • Maimon v. United States (C.F.C.). Represent innovator of next generation of infrared detectors in patent litigation asserting five patents against the United States and its contractors.
  • DH International Ltd. v. Apple Inc. (N.D. Cal.). Represent plaintiff patentee in infringement litigation on digital wallet technology.
  • Dainese S.p.A. v. Alpinestars USA (C.D. Cal.). Represent patent owner Dainese in infringement litigation about motorcycle personal safety garments.
  • Soteropoulos and Tadipatri v. Round Finance and FanCraze (D.C. Del.). Represent plaintiffs alleging breach of fiduciary duties, intentional interference with a prospective economic advantage, conversion, fraud and unjust enrichment.
  • Per Diem Co. LLC v. NexTraq LLC (N.D. Ga.). Represent plaintiff patentee in multiple infringement litigations on  patent portfolio relating to electronic logging technology.
  • KP Innovations 2, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd (W.D. Tex.). Represented plaintiff patentee in infringement litigation on patent for smart phones.
  • DataCloud Techs, LLC v. Imperva, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2024). Represented defendant in infringement action relating to patents for technologies including cloud-based hosting, web application firewall, products for web-based account roles and permissions, and email-based verification via SSL.
  • Gentex Corporation, et al. v. Meta Platforms Technologies, LLC 22-cv-08392 (N.D. Cal. 2023). Represented plaintiff Thales Visionix, Inc. in litigation against Meta for infringing five patents related to interactive gaming.
  • Represented indemnitor in multiple patent litigations covering more than 20 patents relating to telecommunications equipment and asserted to be standard essential.
  • Centre de Recherche Medico Dentaire v. Digital Smile Design et al. (S.D. Fla. 2022). Represent patentee asserting a patent covering smile design systems.
  • PerDiemCo. v. RM Acquisition d/b/a Rand McNally (N.D. Ill. 2021). Represented patentee asserting geofencing and electronic logging devices (ELD).
  • Thales Visionix, Inc. v. United States and Elbit Systems of America (2015) Represented defense contractor-plaintiff patentee before the Court of Federal Claims in litigation about technology supporting the inertial navigation system in pilot helmets in the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
  • Triple T Enterprises v. KFC, Inc., Grubhub Inc., and Postmates Inc. (D. Idaho 2019). Represented holder of Smoky Mountain family of trademarks in assertion of trademark infringement against fast food company and associated delivery companies.
  • Kavod Pharma. & Kavack Pharma. v. Apex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (D. N.J. Bank 2022). Represented pharmaceutical company as creditor in adversarial action proceeding in bankruptcy court.
  • PerDiemCo, LLC v. GPS Insight, LLC (N.D. Ill. 2020). Represented patentee on assertion that defendant infringed eight patents related to geofencing and electronic logging devices (ELD) used in the trucking industry.
  • Gebo Cermex USA, Inc., et al v. ACMI USA, Inc. (N.D. Ga. 2018). Represented plaintiff patentee in enforcement of patent on manufacturing conveyor systems.
  • Apex Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Pack Pharmaceuticals, LLC and Rising Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (Cir. Ct. Cook Cty. 2017). Represented pharmaceutical company in breach of contract action on several products.
  • Gebo Cermex USA, Inc., et al. v. Alliance Industrial Corp. (W.D. Va. 2019). Represented plaintiff patentee in enforcement of patent on manufacturing conveyor systems. Resolved favorably.
  • Veraseal LLC v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., et al. (E.D. Tex. 2017). Represented intervenor-defendant indemnitor in patent litigation about bottle and closure systems.
  • Gebo Cermex USA, Inc. v. Descon Conveyor Systems & Consultants Inc. (N.D. Ga. 2018). Represented plaintiff patentee in enforcement of patent on manufacturing conveyor systems.
  • Watlow v. Continental Automotive Systems, Inc. (E.D. Mo. 2016). Represented automotive supplier as defendant in patent litigation related to temperature sensors.
  • Cascades v. CCH, a Wolters Kluwer Company (N.D. Ill. 2015). Represented publishing company as defendant in patent litigation on web page linking technology.
  • Eli Lilly v. Sun Pharmaceuticals (D. Ind. 2013). Represented a pharmaceutical company in district court litigation on drug for treating certain types of cancer.
  • APP Pharma v. Navinta (D.N.J. 2012). Represented pharmaceutical company in patent litigation through preliminary injunction hearing related to Naropin® and generic ropivacaine hydrochloride.
  • Allergan v. Apotex, et al. (M.D.N.C. 2012). Represented international pharmaceutical company in patent litigation through trial under the Hatch-Waxman Act related to bimatoprost, sold by Allergan as Latisse® for hypotrichosis.
  • Pfizer v. Sandoz Inc. (D. Del. 2011). Represented international pharmaceutical company in patent litigation under the Hatch-Waxman Act related to pregabalin, sold by Pfizer as Lyrica®. Case settled during trial. 
  • Allergan v. Sandoz Inc. (D. Del. 2011). Represented international pharmaceutical company in patent litigation through trial under the Hatch-Waxman Act related to bimatoprost, sold by Allergan as Lumigan® for glaucoma.
  • Novo Nordisk Inc., et al. v. Sandoz Inc. (D.N.J. 2011) and Sandoz Inc. v. Novo Nordisk, Incorporated, et al. (E.D. Mich. 2011). Represented international pharmaceutical company in two successive patent infringement cases over the generic drug repaglinide, used in the treatment of Type 2 diabetes and sold by Novo Nordisk under the brand name Prandin®.
  • Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz (N.D. Ill. 2007). Successfully represented defendant Sandoz on defense of Abbott’s temporary restraining order to prevent the sale of cefdinir, the generic of the antibiotic Omnicef®. The district court ruled in favor of our client that the asserted product-by-process claims were not infringed.
  • Bone Care International v. Maylan Pharms. Inc., et al., (D. Del. 2014).  Represented pharmaceutical company in patent litigation through trial under the Hatch-Waxman Act related to Hectorol® and generic doxercalciferol used to treat secondary hyperparathyroidism in patients with chronic kidney disease.

 

representative PTAB litigation

  • Apple Inc. v. DH Int’l (PTAB). Represent patentee in defense of two patents relating to digital wallets.
  • Google Inc. v. DH Int’l (PTAB). Represent patentee in defense of two patents relating to digital wallets.
  • TikTok v. DiStefano (PTAB). Represent patentee in defense of multiple patents relating to internet reciprocal linking.
  • Meta Platforms Inc. v. Thales Visionix, Inc. (PTAB). Represented patentee Thales Visionix, Inc. in defense of eight inter partes reviews filed by Meta Platforms Technologies on Thales’ portfolio of patents related to interactive gaming.
  • Samsung Elecs. v. KP Innovations 2 (PTAB). Represented patentee in defense of patent relating to dual camera technology. PTAB discretionarily denied institution.
  • FourSquare Labs, Inc. v. BoardActive Corp. (PTAB). Represent patentee in defense of two patents relating to advertising content delivery based on geofencing.
  • Cradlepoint Inc., Dell Inc., Sierra Wireless, Inc. Thales DIS AIS Deutschland GmbH, ZTE Corp., & ZTE (USA) Inc. v. Sisvel International S.A. (PTAB). Represented global technology provider as Petitioner in fifteen inter partes reviews of various claims relating to wireless solutions in patents of patent assertion entity Sisvel and its affiliate 3G Licensing S.A.
  • Alliance Indus. & ACMI Inc. v. Gebo Corp. et al. (PTAB). Represented patent owner in defense of IPR Petition. The PTAB declined to institute IPR.
  • Navistar Inc. v. Fatigue Fracture Tech., LLC (PTAB). Represented respondent in inter partes review proceeding on patent for automotive part manufacturing process.
  • LinkedIn v. DiStefano Patent Trust III (PTAB). Represented respondent in inter partes review proceeding on web page linking. The PTAB declined to institute IPR.
  • In re Fatigue Fracture Tech., LLC (PTAB). Represented patent owner on appeal of defense of ex parte reexamination relating to automotive part technology.
  • Elbit Sys. U.S. v. Thales Visionix, Inc. (PTAB). Represented patent owner in inter partes review on a patent for inertial navigation system.

 

expert witness engagements, special master and court appointed experts

  • LKQ Corp. v General Motors Corp., 1:21cv-05854 (N.D. Ill.).  Serve as a patent law expert, preparing an expert report and providing deposition testimony. 
  • John Gregg v. Cooley LLP, et al., No. MER-L-2332-17 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div.). Provided trail and deposition testimony as a patent law expert witness in case on legal malpractice.
  • Nuance Comm’cns., Inc. v. ABBYY Software House, Lexmark and eCopy, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2014). Court-appointed special master in connection with preparing reports and recommendations (R&Rs) on order, claims and terms to be adjudicated in litigation involving multiple patents related to optical character recognition (OCR) technology. Prepared R&Rs on scheduling orders and submission of late prior art.
  • Protegrity v. Ingrian Networks, Inc. (D. Conn. 2013). Court-appointed technical advisor in database security case to assist court in decisions relating to litigation, including but not limited to discovery; claim construction; dispositive motions; explaining technologies at issue and the scope and content of asserted patents; prior art; procedures before the USPTO; and, explaining the function and operation of accused products. Case was dismissed before trial.
  • Urologix, Inc. v. Prostalund AB (E.D. Wis. 2003) Court-appointed assistant to the district court to prepare recommendations with respect to patent claim construction and summary judgment in patent litigation concerning a medical device. 227 F. Supp. 2d 1033. Reconsideration of the decision was denied, 256 F. Supp. 2d 911.
  • Omega Mfg. Corp. v. Valley Tissue Pkg. (E.D. Wis. 2002). Court-appointed special master in connection with patent claim construction hearing. Prepared claim construction decision and recommendations adopted by the district court on discovery motions in patent litigation relating to packaging of paper products. Case was dismissed.
  • Microelectronic Modules v. Maxim Integrated Prods. (E.D. Wis., filed 2001). Court-appointed expert in connection with the preparation of patent claim construction recommendations and summary judgment recommendations to the district court in patent litigation concerning electrical circuitry.
  • Allen-Bradley Co. v. DataLink Techs. (E.D. Wis. filed 1997). Court-appointed assistant to the district court in connection with preparation of recommendations regarding patent claim construction and summary judgment in complex patent litigation involving patents relating to programmable controllers for integrating multiple computer systems.
  • HK Systems, Inc. v. Mannesmann Dematic Rapistan Corp. (E.D. Wis. filed 2000). Court-appointed expert assistant on claim construction issues and summary judgment motions on patents for automatic guided vehicles. Prepared recommendations on claim construction and multiple summary judgment motions.
  • M.B.A. University of Chicago, Booth School of Business
  • LL.M. in Intellectual Property, with honors, University of Illinois at Chicago
  • J.D., with honors, University of Georgia
  • B.S. Electrical Engineering, Rice University
  • B.A. Fine Arts, Rice University

Bar Admissions

  • Illinois
  • Georgia
  • District of Columbia
  • U.S. Patent & Trademark Office

Admissions to Courts

  • U.S. Supreme Court
  • U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Second Circuit
  • U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
  • U.S. Ct. of Appeals for the Dist. of Columbia
  • U.S. International Trade Commission
  • U.S. Court of Federal Claims
  • U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Ill. (member Trial Bar)
  • U.S. Dist. Ct. N.D. Ga.
  • Supreme Court of Georgia
  • Supreme Court of Illinois
  • Patent Trial and Appeal Board

Chambers USA

  • Chambers USA Band I, 2006–2025
  • Chambers Intellectual Property Woman of the Year – Shortlist, 2011

Illinois Super Lawyers

  • Top 10 Super Lawyers in Illinois 2008, 2015, 2016
  • Top 50 Female Super Lawyers in Illinois, 2005–2020
  • Top 100 Super Lawyers in Illinois 2005, 2008, 2010, 2014–2019

Best Lawyers in America

  • Patent Litigation and Patent Law, 2007–2025

Intellectual Asset Management (IAM)

  • Strategy 300 & Global Leaders (2023–2025)
  • Patent Litigation 1000 (2014–2018)
  • Patent Litigation 250 (2011, 2013)
  • Top 20 Federal Circuit Practitioner
  • Top 15 Illinois Patent Litigator, 2011
  • Leading Patent Litigator, 2011

Law360

Law Bulletin Publishing Company

Leading Lawyers Network

  • Top 10 Intellectual Property Lawyers, 2014
  • Top 10 Leading Women Intellectual Property Lawyers, 2015
  • Top 100 Women Lawyers, 2015
  • Top 100 Women Business Lawyers, 2014–2015
  • Top 250 Leading Business Lawyers, 2014

Legal 500, 2007–2008

Managing Intellectual Property (MIP)

  • Top 250 Women in IP, 2013–2014, 2020–2021
  • IP Stars. 2013–2016, 2020–2021
  • Life Science Star – Patent Litigation, 2012
  • Life Science Star – Hatch-Waxman Litigation, 2012
  • Life Science Star – Patent Strategy & Management, 2012

Faculty & CLE Instruction

  • Featured faculty member in Patent Masters series sponsored by IPWatchdog, 2019–2024.
  • Featured faculty member in ongoing series at the Practising Law Institute on patent litigation, 2014–2025.
  • Panelist. “Hot Topics in Patent Law.” Patent Law Institute. San Francisco, Calif. 21–22 Oct 2024.
  • Panelist. “Appellate Practice.” Silicon Valley IP Forum. Palo Alto, Calif. 24 Mar 2024.
  • Panelist. “Effectively Using and Dealing with Experts at the PTAB.” IPWatchdog PTAB Masters. 30 Jan 2024.
  • Panelist. “Navigating Parallel Patent Challenges at the PTAB, ITC, District Court and CAFC.” IPWatchdog PTAB Masters. 29 Jan 2024.
  • Panelist. Patent Litigation – Federal Circuit Review. Practicing Law Institute. 2–3 Nov 2023.
  • Panelist. “Hot Topics in Patent Law.” Patent Law Institute. San Francisco, Calif. 2–3 Nov 2023.
  • Panelist. “Federal Circuit Review: The Most Important Decisions 0f 2023.” IPWatchdog Live. 19 Sep 2023.
  • Panelist. “U.S. District Court Patent Litigation: Where to File & What to Expect.” IPWatchdog Live. 18 Sep 2023.
  • Panelist. “Getting Past the Conflict and Resolving Patent Infringement Disputes,” IPWatchdog Patent Litigation Masters. May 16, 2023.
  • Panelist. “Improving and Streamlining Patent Enforcement in America,” IPWatchdog Patent Litigation Masters. May 15, 2023.
  • Panelist. “Your Patent Has Been Challenged in an IPR, What Now?” IPWatchdog PTAB Masters. 31 Jan–1 Feb 2023.
  • Federal Circuit Review – The Most Important Decisions of 2023. IPWatchdog Live 2023. 17–19 Sep 2023.
  • Panelist. “District Court Patent Litigation – Where to File and What to Expect.” IPWatchdog Live 2023. 17–19 Sep 2023.
  • Panelist. “Improving and Streamlining Patent Enforcement.” IPWatchdog Patent Litigation Masters. 15–17 May 2023.
  • Panelist. “Getting Past the Conflict and Resolving Patent Infringement Disputes.” IPWatchdog Patent Litigation Masters. 15–17 May 2023.
  • Panelist. “Your Patent Has Been Challenged in IPR. Now What?” IPWatchdog PTAB Masters.