Laura A. Lydigsen

Ms. Lydigsen practices intellectual property litigation and prosecution, with a focus on biotech, pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Prior to joining Brinks, she worked as a law clerk to the Honorable Alvin A. Schall at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Honorable Ruben Castillo at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

• Illinois Super Lawyers, Rising Stars, 2010
• Alumni Association Prize for the highest overall G.P.A. in graduating class, Washington University School of Law
• Order of the Coif, Washington University School of Law
• Associate Editor, Washington University Law Quarterly
• Giles Rich Moot Court Team, Midwest Regional Winner 2004

• Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz Inc., 566 F.3d 1282 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (en banc in part), cert. denied, No. 09-335 (2010). Lead counsel for Appellant Sandoz in an appeal involving patents related to the antibiotic Omnicef^® and generic Cefdinir.
• Boss v. Cabilly, No. 2009-1264 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Interference No. 105,531). Successfully represented Genentech in an appeal of the decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that Genentech’s “Cabilly” patent application (No. 08/422,187) has priority over UCB Pharma’s “Boss” patent application (No. 08/450,727) covering recombinant DNA techniques for manufacturing antibodies. The technology is now a foundation for many top-selling cancer-treatment drugs such as Avastin^®, Herceptin^® and Rituxan^®.
• Seirus Innovative Accessories v. Do-Gree Fashions Ltd., No. 2:05-cv-355 (D. Utah 2007-2008). Represented Do-Gree in multiple-patent case relating to skiwear, which settled shortly after the client received a favorable claim interpretation ruling, but before the pending motions for summary judgment of non-infringement were decided.
• Herman Miller, Inc. v. Teknion Corp. and Okamura Corp., No. 05-cv-2761 (N.D. Ill. 2007-2008). Represented Herman Miller in a patent infringement action against Teknion and Okamura relating to Herman Miller's iconic Aeron^® chair. Herman Miller obtained summary judgment that the accused chair literally infringed. The case settled shortly thereafter.
• Pequignot v. Solo Cup Co., No. 1:07-cv-897 (E.D. Va. 2007-2008): Represented Solo Cup Co. against a false patent marking claim during discovery and preparation of a summary judgment motion. The claims eventually were dismissed on summary judgment.

• "QUI-TAM-OSAURUS, the Statutory Dinosaur: Evolution or Extinction for the Qui Tam Patent False Marking Statute?" ENGAGE - The Journal of the Federalist Society Practice Groups, Vol. 10, Issue 3 (Oct. 2009); also published in IPO.org (April 9, 2010)
• "Fairness and Justice" after Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: Subsequent Regulatory Takings Decisions Under the "Parcel as a Whole" Framework, 82 Wash U. L.Q. 1513 (2004)

• "The New Law Under In re Bilski: Are Your Process Patents Now Invalid?," Utah Technology Council (UTC) Industry Luncheon, Salt Lake City, Utah, December 3, 2008

• Chicago Daily Law Bulletin