Katie’s known for practicing at the intersection of science and the law. She pinpoints the advantages and disadvantages of each case, quickly and efficiently. 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 teenagers to their many activities.
Examples of business, contract, and environmental disputes:
Metropolitan Council, Hennepin County, Hennepin County Regional Railroad Authority/Twin Cities & Western Railroad: Represent the Council, Hennepin County and HCRRA regarding colocation of freight and light rail in the Bass Lake Spur and Kenilworth Corridor for the Southwest Light Rail Transit Project.
Lead Trial 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. The 2017 trial resulted in a finding that the DNR violated MERA and many environmental laws, resulting in equitable relief. (2017)
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)
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.
Examples of patent litigation representation:
Kashiv Pharma: Current representation of Kashiv Pharma in an ongoing Hatch-Waxman patent dispute against Purdue Pharma and others over a generic drug.
Mondelēz International, Inc.: Represented Mondelēz International, Inc. in a patent dispute against Kellogg over a patent on a cookie package. Argued appeal to Federal Circuit.
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.
*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.
**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.