Katie’s known for pinpointing the advantages and disadvantages of each case, and doing it quickly. In order to know how to maneuver your client’s case, you also need to understand your opponent’s path. Seeing through the pitfalls while recognizing the advantages both sides face helps to refine the business goals and litigation strategies for any dispute. Plus, after teaming up with Mike and Jan since 1995, Katie’s learned that the best litigation strategy may be an unconventional one. When not working, Katie can be found at her northern Minnesota cabin or chauffeuring her three kids to their many activities.

Experience

  • Leadership, strategy and advocacy in all areas of business litigation.
  • Litigation counsel for plaintiffs and defendants in patent infringement cases involving technology ranging from food packaging design, internet-based technology including web browsers and communication protocols, mailing machines, heart stents, and MRI.
  • Co-Creator of OneBudget® – a software program designed for monitoring current budgets and modeling of future budgets.
  • Architect of the Legal Project Management Program (LPM) launched at Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. LPM involves evaluating case scope, budget, and the legal work schedule to ensure proper communication with the client and case team and efficient work at all levels.

Selected Case Results

Examples of patent litigation representation:

Amneal Pharmaceuticals, LLC:  Current representation of Amneal Pharmaceuticals in an ongoing Hatch-Waxman patent dispute against Purdue Pharma and others over a generic drug.

Mondelēz International, Inc.: Current representation of Mondelēz International, Inc. in a patent dispute against Kellogg over a patent on a cookie package.

Ricoh Corp. v. Pitney Bowes Inc.:  Trial counsel for Pitney Bowes defending a patent infringement case involving communications and control within Pitney Bowes’ mailing machines.  The case was tried in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey, Trenton Division, with Judge Brown presiding.  The jury returned a verdict of invalidity in favor of Pitney Bowes finding anticipation of all 18 asserted claims.  In addition, during trial, the Court entered summary judgment of anticipation of four additional claims.  Jury decision was affirmed in a post-trial memorandum by the district court and summarily affirmed by the Federal Circuit.

Pitney Bowes Inc. v. Hewlett Packard Co.: Trial counsel for Pitney Bowes in which Pitney Bowes obtained $400 million and certain intellectual property from Hewlett Packard in settlement of a patent dispute over laser jet printers.

Represented manufacturer of magnetic resonance imaging products in patent infringement and breach of contract action related to contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography technology.  The case settled before trial.

 

Examples of other business, contract, and environmental disputes: 

St. Paul Public Schools/Silva.  Negotiated Separation Agreement on behalf of Valeria Silva, the Superintendent of Saint Paul Public Schools, providing her at least $787,500 in payments and benefits from the School District.  Represented by Mike Ciresi, Katie Crosby Lehmann and Mat Korte on behalf of the firm. (2016)

Sightpath Medical, LLC v. Precision Lens, et al.:  Represented Defendants in a business-to-business dispute involving defense of breach of confidentiality agreement, tortious interference with contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and other claims.  Settlement obtained weeks before trial set to begin.  (2015)

Mondelēz International, Inc.: In 2015, lead counsel, together with a team of inside counsel, for Mondelēz International Inc. in a negotiation and/or then potential litigation dispute with Kraft Foods Group, Inc. involving a wide variety of intellectual property and treatment of certain provisions of key contracts impacting worldwide rights.  Settlement was reached and involved, among other things, a division of IP by product and country across the world, agreed treatment of certain provisions of key contracts as they relate to contemplated transactions by the involved parties, and future treatment of key contract provisions. (2015)

Co-Lead Counsel representing White Bear Lake Restoration Association against the Minnesota DNR in an action to enforce the Minnesota Environmental Rights Act seeking to prevent further destruction and impairment of White Bear Lake and the underlying aquifers.

Kraft Foods Group, Inc./Mondelēz International, Inc. v. Starbucks Coffee Company: Counsel represented Kraft in a three-year arbitration regarding a breach of contract after Starbucks unilaterally terminated its agreement, cutting off Kraft’s exclusive rights to sell, market and distribute Starbucks roast and ground coffee in grocery and other retail outlets. The arbitration resulted in a $2.7 billion cash award to Kraft.

Represented mineral rights owners in a putative class action against the State of North Dakota and others for the alleged unlawful taking of mineral interests along navigable waters in the State.  Our clients claimed that the State and others have wrongfully claimed title to their mineral interests and wrongfully leased those interests for the extraction and production of oil and gas.

 

*Past results are reported to provide the reader with an indication of the type of litigation we practice. They do not and should not be construed to create an expectation of result in any other case, as all cases are dependent upon their own unique fact situation and applicable law.

Case results before 2015 were obtained while Katie was at her former firm, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P.

Recognition

  • Named “Attorney of the Year” by Minnesota Lawyer (2013)
  • Named “40 Under Forty” by Minneapolis/St. Paul Business Journal (2007)
  • Named a “Rising Star” by Super Lawyers (2008)**

**Being named to the list or receiving the award is not intended and should not be viewed as comparative to other lawyers or to create an expectation about results that might be achieved in a future matter.

Articles

  • A Practical Slant on LPM Implementation
    Pam Woldow’s At the Intersection – Guest Post in Legal Project Management (October 14, 2013)
  • Protecting Your Key Innovations
    Food Manufacturing (May 2, 2013)
  • Litigation: Getting the Most From Legal Project Management
    InsideCounsel (October 25, 2012)
  • What CEOs Should Know About Licensing
    Executive Counsel, Vol. 4 No. 6 (November/December 2007) (co-authored)
  • Willfulness Standard: Is There a Bright Line?
    BNA’s Patent, Trademark & Copyright Journal, Vol. 74, No. 1827 (July 20, 2007)
  • Name Your Company Witness
    The National Law Journal (May 9, 2007)