Katherine (Katie) Prescott partners with clients to protect their innovative products, services, and trade secrets through creative litigation strategies and proactive counseling.
With a unique insider’s perspective gained from working in-house at a top 10 Fortune 500 consumer electronics company, Katie understands the impact of litigation from a client’s point of view, and she formulates legal strategy with an eye to the realities and constraints her clients are working under. Her practice covers a broad spectrum of technologies, from software, computer security, and network technology to medical devices and consumer products.
Known for her organized, detail-focused, and relational approach to managing both cases and teams, Katie has extensive experience leading all aspects of litigation, including pre-suit investigation, fact and expert discovery, claim construction, summary judgment, mediation, and trial. She also provides her clients with strategic counseling, particularly in the area of trade secrets, to develop and implement long-term plans that minimize risk and optimize market positions.
Katie’s pro bono practice includes working alongside AdkAction to support the environmental sustainability, community health, and cultural vitality of the Adirondack region. In conjunction with Kids in Need of Defense, she provides legal defense to unaccompanied migrant and refugee children in asylum matters. She also serves on the board of the National Homelessness Law Center and teaches a course in trade secret law at University of California, Davis School of Law.
In her leisure time, Katie pursues her lifelong goal of joining the ranks of the Adirondack 46ers by scaling all 46 of the highest peaks in the Adirondack Mountains, an endeavor made all the more rewarding now that she is often joined on hikes by her son.
Experience
Represented the University of Minnesota in four District of Minnesota patent infringement cases that each alleged infringement of five of the University’s wireless communications patents. The University sought damages for alleged infringement related to the defendants’ LTE and 5G networks. The District Court cases reached summary judgment, which the University successfully opposed, prior to settling favorably on the eve of trial. Fish had previously fended off six related IPRs on behalf of patent owner, obtaining institution denials in each matter.
