Search Team

Search by Last Name
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
I
J
K
L
M
N
O
P
Q
R
S
T
U
V
W
X
Y
Z
  • Overview
  • Experience
  • Insights
  • Recognition

Highlights

  • Extensive experience handling high-stakes, high-risk IP disputes, where hundreds of millions of dollars – even a company’s existence – are at stake.
  • Lead counsel in many forums for technology and medical device clients of all sizes, from startups to industry giants.
  • Appellate and briefing specialist, with an impressive record of summary judgment and appellate wins.

About Lauren

The Managing Principal of Fish’s Washington, D.C., office, Lauren is a seasoned trial and appellate lawyer who handles high-stakes, high-risk IP disputes – generally competitor-to-competitor matters – that often weave their way through a complex maze of courts and jurisdictions. Her experience in a wide variety of forums has given her the experience necessary to develop coordinated, sophisticated strategies that often result in securing fast, favorable outcomes for clients.

Lauren’s multifaceted trial experience includes regular appearances before:

  • Federal District Courts
  • The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • The United States International Trade Commission (ITC)
  • The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)

While Lauren has served as lead counsel in numerous complex patent infringement cases, she is equally adept at keeping her clients out of court. She has used her expertise in patent infringement litigation and persuasive writing skills to help numerous clients avoid costly and protracted courtroom battles altogether. Her talent for successfully resolving cases both inside and outside the courtroom has contributed to her reputation as a trusted legal advisor whose clients value her ability to craft creative solutions for their most challenging legal problems.

Lauren’s clients include industry giants such as LG Energy Solution, Arista Networks, Microsoft, Raytheon, and Samsung, and she has deep experience with a wide variety of IP matters, including utility patents, design patents, registered trademarks, trade dress, trade secrets, breach of contract claims, post-grant proceedings (e.g., ex parte and inter partes review (IPR)), and commercial litigation involving antitrust issues and breaches of fiduciary duties.

Lauren has litigated cases involving computer software, networks, and peripherals; microprocessors; telecommunications equipment; lithium-ion batteries; medical devices; smartphones; LCDs and plasma displays; security and encryption technologies; GPS devices; flash memory; internet applications; business methods; document imaging and storage systems; and various mechanical inventions.

Advocacy

Despite her busy practice, Lauren devotes time to mentoring young lawyers within Fish and encouraging women who are interested in STEM to pursue careers in the field. She credits her client Microsoft with giving her opportunities to argue in court early in her career. Now, as a seasoned litigator, she is devoted to helping young lawyers find similar early opportunities to advance their careers.

Q&A with Lauren Degnan: Women Worth Watching.Q&A with Lauren Degnan

Speaking Engagements

  • “Appellate Mishaps: The Common and the Not So Common Across Various Types of IP Litigation,” American Intellectual Property Law Association Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. (October 29, 2021)
  • PTAB Master Class,” Panelist, 2021 PTAB Bar Annual Conference (September 22, 2021)
  • Current Issues and Best Practices For Appeals from the PTAB to the Federal Circuit” PTAB Bar Association Webinar (September, 9, 2021)
  • Post-Grant for Practitioners Webinar | Post-Grant Mid-Year Review,” Fish Post-Grant Webinar (June 30, 2021)
  • Post-Grant for Practitioners Webinar | After Arthrex: What the Supreme Court’s Decision Means,” Fish Post-Grant Webinar (June 23, 2021)
  • “Recent Developments at the PTAB & Their Effect on Litigation Strategy,” LAIPLA Webinar (October 2020)
  • “Recent U.S. Patent Case Law Update,” IPO 2020 Virtual Annual Meeting (September 2020)
  • Just the Facts: A Mid-Year Patent Litigation Review,” Fish Litigation Webinar (August 2020)
  • “Practice Excellence,” 2020 Federal Circuit Bar Association Bench & Bar (June 2020)
  • “Federal Circuit & Supreme Court 2019 Yearly Review,” Fish Litigation Webinar (October 2019)
  • “Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Yearly Review,” Fish Litigation Webinar (October 2018)
  • “Federal Circuit and Supreme Court Yearly Review,” Fish Litigation Webinar (September 2017)
  • “Life in the Fast Lane: IP Litigation at the ITC,” Georgia Association of Corporate Counsel Meeting, Atlanta, GA (July 2017)
  • “Reviewability of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s Decision to Institute Post-Grant Proceedings,” American University Washington College of Law (March 2016)
  • “Damages Point/Counterpoint,” 8th Annual Conference, The Role of the Courts in Patent Law & Policy, hosted by Berkeley Law and Georgetown Law (December 2016)

Media Mentions

Represented LG Chem and LG Energy Solution in multi-patent infringement disputes involving lithium-ion battery technology that is essential for the future of the electric vehicle industry. The cases ended in favorable settlements.

Strategically involved in a multibillion-dollar, highly complex patent-related antitrust and commercial litigation for a Fortune 10 consumer electronics company versus Qualcomm. The case included appearances in several venues, including the ITC and the USPTO, where dozens of IPRs were argued, and many were appealed to the Federal Circuit. The global, two-year battle eventually ended in a settlement.

At the appellate level, Lauren has an extraordinary record for obtaining IPR victories. Examples include decisions vacating and/or reversing IPR final written decisions based on erroneous claim constructions and the Board’s failure to apply KSR’s teachings faithfully. Another notable win is Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., Case No. 17-1525 (Fed. Cir. 2018), where the court vacated an IPR final written decision finding certain claims not proven unpatentable due to an erroneous claim construction and, in the cross-appeal, endorsed the PTAB’s long-standing position that assignor estoppel is not available in IPR proceedings and upheld the PTAB’s unpatentability decision for other claims.

Representative Cases

Appellate

Raytheon Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Co., No. 20-1755 (Fed. Cir. 2021)—Successfully reversed IPR final written decision finding claims unpatentable because the relied-upon prior art was not enabled.

Appeal No. 20-1560 (Fed. Cir. 2021)—Successfully defended IPR final written decision finding claims unpatentable.

Appeal No. 19-1164 (Fed. Cir. 2020)—Successfully reversed and remanded IPR final written decision finding claims not proven unpatentable because the Board erred in finding a claim limitation would not have been obvious.

Appeal No. 19-1165 (Fed. Cir. 2020)—Successfully reversed IPR final written decision finding independent claims would not have been obvious, and vacated decision on dependent claims.

United Technologies Corp. v. General Electric Co., No. 18-1600 (Fed. Cir. 2019)—Successfully vacated IPR final written decision finding claims unpatentable due to erroneous claim construction.

Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 17-1525 (Fed. Cir. 2018)—Successfully reversed and remanded IPR final written decision finding claims not proven unpatentable under erroneous claim construction and defended the Board’s decision that assignor estoppel does not bar IPR challenge.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc., No. 17-2336 (Fed. Cir. 2018)—Successfully defended IPR final written decision finding claims unpatentable.

Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 17-1313 (Fed. Cir. 2018)—Successfully vacated IPR final written decision finding claims not proven unpatentable.

Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., No. 17-2384 (Fed. Cir. 2018)—Successfully defended IPR final written decision finding claims unpatentable.

Virtual Solutions LLC v. Microsoft Corp., No. 13-1250 (Fed. Cir. 2013)—Successfully defended summary judgment of invalidity for Microsoft in patent infringement case involving Xbox Kinect technology.

Cordis Corp. v. Boston Scientific Corp., No. 10-1311 (Fed. Cir. 2011)—Successfully defended judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement for defendant/cross-appellant BSC in patent infringement case involving stents.

Encyclopedia Britannica v. TomTom, Inc. et al., No. 09-1544 (Fed. Cir. 2010)—Successfully defended summary judgment of invalidity of two Britannica patents for defendant/appellee TomTom in patent infringement case involving navigation devices.

Fenner Investment, Ltd v. Microsoft Corporation et al., No. 09-1496 (Fed. Cir. 2010)—Successfully defended summary judgment of noninfringement for defendant/appellee Microsoft in patent infringement case involving joystick port interface circuits.

ArthroCare Corp. v. Smith & Nephew, Inc., No. 04-1323 (Fed. Cir. 2005)—Successfully overturned jury verdict of no invalidity and dismissal of antitrust claim for defendant/appellant Smith & Nephew in patent infringement and antitrust case involving electrosurgical devices.

Mirror Imaging LLC v. Affiliated Computer Servs., Inc. et al., No. 04-1479 (Fed. Cir. 2005)—Represented defendant/appellee ACS in patent infringement case involving check storage and retrieval systems. Mirror Imaging dismissed its appeal of summary judgment of noninfringement after motion for damages and costs for defending against a frivolous appeal.

Advanced Interactive Inc. v. Matsushita Elec. Corp. et al., No. 00-1491 (Fed. Cir. 2001)—Successfully defended summary judgment of noninfringement for defendant/appellee ATI Technologies in patent infringement case involving digital video and text transmission systems.

Bell Atlantic Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Communications Group, Inc. et al., No. 00-1475 (Fed. Cir. 2001)—Successfully defended summary judgment of noninfringement for defendant/appellee Covad Communications in patent infringement case involving DSL transmission systems.

Brief of Amicus Curiae, Intellectual Property Owners Association, Return Mail, Inc. v. United States Postal Service and United States, No. 17-1594 (S. Ct.)

Brief of Amicus Curiae, Intellectual Property Owners Association, SAS Institute Inc. v. Matal et al., No. 16-969 (S. Ct.)

District Court

Hantz Software, LLC v. Sage Intacct, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2021) (J. Gilliam)—Representing defendants in multi-patent infringement case involving business method patents. Pending.

Acorn Semi, LLC v. Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2019) (J. Gilstrap)—Representing defendants in multi-patent infringement case involving semiconductor fabrication technology. Pending.

LG Chem, Ltd. and Toray Industries, Inc. v. SK Innovation Co., Ltd. and SK Battery America, Inc.  (D. Del. 2019) (J. Connolly)—Represented plaintiffs in multi-patent infringement case involving lithium-ion battery technology. Favorable settlement.

SK Innovation Co., Ltd. v. LG Chem Ltd., LG Chem Michigan, Inc. and LG Electronics, Inc. (D. Del. 2019) (J. Connolly)—Represented defendants in patent infringement case involving battery technology. Favorable settlement.

SK Innovation Co., Ltd. v. LG Chem Ltd. and LG Chem Michigan, Inc. (D. Del. 2019) (J. Connolly)—Represented LG Chem in patent infringement case involving battery technology. Favorable settlement.

SK Innovation Co., Ltd. v. LG Chem Ltd., LG Chem Michigan, Inc. and LG Electronics, Inc. (D. Del. 2019) (J. Connolly )—Represented LG Chem in patent infringement case involving battery technology. Favorable settlement.

LG Chem, Ltd. and Toray Industries, Inc. v. Amperex Technology Ltd. (E.D. Mich. 2017) (J. Lawson)—Represented plaintiffs in multi-patent infringement case involving lithium-ion battery technology. Favorable settlement.

Cisco Systems, Inc. v. Arista Networks, Inc. (N.D. Cal. 2014) (J. White)—Represented Arista in multi-patent infringement case involving Ethernet switches. Favorable settlement.

IMS Health Inc. v. Symphony Health Solutions, Corp. et. al. (D. Del. 2013) (J. Sleet)—Represented IMS Health in multi-patent infringement case involving healthcare analytics and informatics. Favorable settlement.

Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd. v. Finisar Corp. (E.D. Tex. 2013) (J. Gilstrap)—Represented Thomas Swan multi-patent infringement case involving wavelength selective switch technology. Favorable settlement.

Virtual Solutions LLC v. Microsoft Corp. (S.D.N.Y 2012) (J. Scheindlin)—Won summary judgment of invalidity due to indefiniteness for defendant Microsoft in patent infringement case involving Xbox Kinect technology.

Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. Samsung Telecommunications America LLC (E.D. Mich. 2011) (J. Zatkoff)—Represented Samsung in multi-patent infringement case involving videophone technology. Secured early dismissal.

Keranos, LLC v. Analog Devices, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2010) (J. Schroeder)—Represented Intel in multi-patent infringement case involving flash memory. Favorable settlement.

Microsoft Corp. v. St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. (D. Del. 2010) (J. Stark)—Represented Microsoft in multi-patent declaratory judgment case involving power management technology. Favorable settlement following significant summary judgment wins.

PACid v. Intel Corp. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2009) (J. Davis)—Represented Intel and Marvell in patent infringement case involving WiFi encryption. Favorable settlement.

Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. TomTom, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2008) (J. Clark)—Represented TomTom in patent infringement case involving navigation devices. Favorable early settlement.

Research in Motion Ltd. v. Eastman Kodak Co. (N.D. Tex. 2008) (J. Kinkead)—Represented RIM in multi-patent declaratory judgment case involving image processing and Java-compliant software. Favorable settlement.

Encyclopedia Britannica v. TomTom, Inc. et al. (W.D. Tex. 2007) (J. Yeakel)—Before any discovery was conducted, won summary judgment of invalidity of two Britannica patents for defendant TomTom in patent infringement case involving navigation devices.

Fenner Investment, Ltd v. Microsoft Corporation et al. (E.D. Tex. 2007) (J. Davis)—Won summary judgment of noninfringement one day before trial for defendant Microsoft in patent infringement case involving joystick port interface circuits.

Finisar Corp. v. XM Satellite Radio Holdings Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2007) (J. Clark)—Represented XM in patent infringement case involving satellite radio. Case dismissed on favorable terms.

LG Electronics, Inv. v. Hitachi Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2007) (J. Ward)—Represented LGE in competitor patent infringement case involving plasma display panels. Favorable settlement.

Sharp Corp. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2007) (J. Ward)—Represented Samsung in multi-patent infringement case involving liquid crystal display technologies. Favorable settlement.

Garmin Corp. et al. v. TomTom, Inc. (W.D. Wisc. 2006) (J. Crabb) & (E.D. Tex. 2006) (J. Davis)—Represented TomTom in competitor multi-patent infringement and antitrust case involving navigation devices and methods. Favorable settlement after winning summary judgment of noninfringement and invalidity against five Garmin patents in W.D. Wisc. case and defeating motion to dismiss antitrust counterclaim in E.D. Tex. case.

Computer Cache Coherency Corp. v. Intel Corp. (N.D. Cal. 2005) (J. Whyte)—Represented Intel in patent infringement case involving interface circuits providing communications between computer systems. Won summary judgment of noninfringement.

Digital Packet Licensing Inc. v. MCI, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2005) (J. Davis)—Represented Time Warner Cable in patent infringement case involving digital packet telephone systems and voice over IP technology. Favorable early settlement.

Fenner Investments, Ltd. v. Juniper Networks, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2005) (J. Davis)—Represented Nokia in patent infringement case involving mobile communications infrastructure equipment. Favorable settlement after exchange of expert reports.

Henrob Ltd. v. Böllhoff Systemtechnik GmbH & Co. KG. et al. (E.D. Mich. 2005) (J. Cleland)—Represented plaintiff/patentee Henrob in competitor patent infringement case involving self-pierce riveting technology. Favorable settlement after defeating case dispositive summary judgment motions.

Wichita Falls Power Management, L.L.C. v. Intel Corp. (N.D. Tex. 2005) (J. Boyle)—Represented Intel in patent infringement case involving power management technology for microprocessors. Favorable settlement.

Honeywell International Inc. et al. v. Audiovox Corp. et al. (D. Del. 2004) (J. Jordan)—Represented Nokia in large-scale, multi-defendant patent infringement case involving liquid crystal displays. Secured early stay pending resolution of claims against manufacturer defendants. Case dismissed following summary judgment of invalidity in manufacturer defendants’ case.

MyMail, Ltd. v. America Online, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2004) (J. Davis)—Represented AOL in patent infringement case involving computer networks and on-line services. Favorable settlement while motion for summary judgment of noninfringement was pending.

Cisco Sys. Inc. v. Alcatel USA, Inc. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2003) (J. Brown)—Represented Alcatel in antitrust case involving optical cross connect technology. Favorable settlement.

William Reber, LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc. et al. (N.D. Ill. 2003) (J. Der-Yeghiayan)—Represented Nokia in patent infringement case involving image capture-capable cellular telephones. Favorable early settlement.

DataTreasury Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. et al. (E.D. Tex. 2002) (J. Folsom)—Represented ACS in patent infringement case involving document imaging and storage systems. Case dismissed on favorable terms.

Mirror Imaging LLC v. Affiliated Computer Servs., Inc. (E.D. Mich. 2002) (J. Cleland)—Won summary judgment of noninfringement for defendant ACS in patent infringement and trade secret case involving check storage and retrieval systems.

Alcatel USA, Inc. v. Tekelec, Inc. (E.D. Tex. 2000) (J. Brown)—Represented plaintiff/patentee Alcatel in competitor patent infringement and antitrust case involving mobile communications routing equipment. Favorable settlement after denial of defendant’s motion for summary judgment of noninfringement.

Alcatel v. IPOptical/Alex Mondrus (E.D Va. 2000) (J. Bryan)—Obtained TRO, and preliminary and permanent relief for trade secret misappropriation and copyright infringement.

Cabot Corp. v. Minnesota Mining & Mfg. Co. (S.D. Ind. 2000) (J. Dillin)—Represented defendant 3M in competitor patent infringement case involving safety equipment. Favorable settlement after partial summary judgment of noninfringement.

CIENA Corp. v. Corvis Corp. (D. Del. 2000) (J. Farnan)—Secured jury verdicts of infringement and no invalidity for plaintiff/patentee CIENA in competitor multi-patent infringement case involving dense wave division multiplexing optical communications systems. Case settled after injunction issued.

Intel Corp. v. Broadcom Corp. (D. Del. 2000) (J. McKelvie)—Represented plaintiff/patentee Intel in competitor patent infringement case involving digital video processors and compression algorithms. Favorable settlement after successful motion for a new trial.

Bell Atl. Network Servs., Inc. v. Covad Commc’ns Group, Inc. et al. (E.D. Va. 1999) (J. Friedman)—Won summary judgment of noninfringement for defendant Covad Communications in competitor patent infringement case involving DSL transmission systems.

Section 337 Proceedings

Certain Lithium-ion Battery Cells, Battery Modules, Battery Packs, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-1181 (2019)—Represented complainants LG Chem and Toray Industries in patent infringement case. Favorable settlement.

Certain Pouch-Type Battery Cells, Battery Modules, and Battery Packs, and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-1179 (2019)—Represented LG Chem respondents in patent infringement case. Favorable settlement.

Certain Batteries and Electrochemical Devices Containing Composite Separators, Components Thereof, and Products Containing Same, 337-TA-1087 (2017)—Represented complainants LG Chem and Toray Industries in patent infringement case. Favorable settlement.

Certain Network Devices, Related Software and Components Thereof I & II, 337-TA-944 & -945 (2014)—Represented respondent Arista Networks in patent infringement cases. Favorable settlement.

Certain Robotic Toys and Components Thereof, 337-TA-869 (2013)—Represented complainant Innovation First in trade secret misappropriation case. Favorable settlement.

Certain Flash Memory Chips and Products Containing the Same, 337-TA-735 (2010)—Represented respondents including Nokia, PNY, Samsung, and Transcend in patent infringement case. Favorable settlement.

Certain Inkjet Ink Supplies and Components Thereof, 337-TA-581 (2006)—Represented complainant Hewlett-Packard in patent infringement case. Favorable settlement.

Certain Point of Sale Terminals and Components Thereof, 337-TA-524 (2004)—Won summary determination that the complainant lacked standing for respondent Ingenico in patent infringement case.

Certain Signature Capture Devices and Component Parts Thereof, and Systems That Employ Such Devices, 337-TA-504 (2003)—Represented respondent Ingenico in patent infringement case. Favorable settlement.

Certain Safety Eyewear and Components Thereof, 337-TA-433 (2000)—Represented complainant Bacou USA/Uvex in case involving infringement of utility and design patents and trade dress. Favorable settlement.

Post-Grant PTO Proceedings

SK Innovations Co. Ltd. v. LG Chem, Ltd., IPR2020-00982, -00987, -00991, -00992, -01036, -01239, -01240—Represented patent owner. Denial of institution.

LG Chem, Ltd. v. SK Innovations Co. Ltd.,  IPR2020-00657—Represented petitioner. Case terminated due to settlement.

Arista Networks, Inc. v. Cisco Systems, Inc., IPR2016-00303, -00309, IPR2015-00975, -00978—Represented petitioner. Favorable final written decisions.

Symphony Health Solutions Corp. v. IMS Health Inc., CBM2015-0070, -00085, CBM2014-00188—Represented patent owner. Cases terminated due to settlement.

Finisar Corp. v. Thomas Swan & Co. Ltd., IPR2014-001460, -00161, -00162, -00165—Represented patent owner. Cases terminated due to settlement.

Microstrategy, Inc. v. Zillow, Inc., IPR2013-00034—Represented petitioner. Final written decision holding certain claims unpatentable.

Other Litigation

Microsoft v. Vadem et al. (Delaware Court of Chancery 2012)—Represented Microsoft Corporation in a shareholder derivative suit, asserting claims of breach of fiduciary duties and self-dealing.

  • Named “Litigation Trailblazer,” National Law Journal (2021)
  • “The World’s Leading Patent Practitioners,” IAM Patent 1000 (2017-2021)
  • Pro Bono Leadership Award, Federal Circuit Bar Association (2012)
  • Pro Bono Advocacy Award, Federal Circuit Bar Association (2011)
  • Washington, DC, Super Lawyer (2013–2021)
  • “Women Worth Watching in STEM,” Profiles in Diversity Journal (2017)

“Lauren was a rock for us. She managed a series of highly complex cases. And, she handled some very difficult cases. She has an excellent mind.” – Client testimonial, Chambers and Partners, 2020

“Crucially, Fish can back up its trial victories at the Federal Circuit thanks to appellate specialist, Lauren Degnan.”
Client testimonial, Chambers and Partners 2019

Focus Areas
Education

J.D. Order of the Coif, Vanderbilt University Law School (1995) Member, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law


B.S., Mechanical Engineering, Cornell University (1992)

Admissions
  • U.S. Patent and Trademark Office 1997
  • District of Columbia 1996
  • Massachusetts 1996
  • Supreme Court of the United States
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
  • U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan
  • U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas
  • U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
Clerkships

U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, The Honorable Haldane Robert Mayer, 1997 - 1999

Memberships & Affiliations

Vice Chair, Federal Circuit Bar Association, Amicus Committee.

Member, Intellectual Property Owners Association, Amicus Committee.

Vice Chair, PTAB Bar Association, Committee on Appeals from the PTAB.

Member, Federal Circuit Historical Society Board.

Member, Women in IP Network (WIN) DC Chapter.

Member, Women in Law Empowerment Forum; DC Chapter Board Member (2012-2019), Co-Chair (2013-2015).

Member, International Trade Commission Trial Lawyers Association.

What's trending with Lauren

Filter by
News
November 3, 2021
Lauren Degnan named National Law Journal “Litigation Trailblazer”
Press Release
Recognition
News
Event
September 22nd, 2021 | 1:00 pm EDT
2021 PTAB Bar Annual Conference
Speaking Engagement
Sponsorship
Event
September 9th, 2021 | 1:00 pm EDT
PTAB Bar Association Webinar | Current Issues and Best Practices For Appeals from the PTAB to the Federal Circuit
Speaking Engagement
News
July 7, 2021
Fish & Richardson Receives Top Rankings in 2021 Edition of IAM Patent 1000: The World’s Leading Patent Professionals
Recognition
News
Event
June 23rd, 2021 | 1:00 pm EDT
Post-Grant for Practitioners Webinar | After Arthrex: What the Supreme Court's Decision Means
Webinar
Event
June 30th, 2021 | 1:30 pm EDT
Post-Grant for Practitioners Webinar | Post-Grant Mid-Year Review
Webinar
News
April 7, 2021
Thirty Fish Attorneys Named to 2020 Capital Pro Bono Honor Roll
Announcements
Event
September 21st, 2020
2020 IPO Annual Meeting
Speaking Engagement
News
August 12, 2020
Fish & Richardson Receives Top “Gold” Ranking from IAM Patent 1000 for National Litigation Practice; National Rankings in the Plaintiff Firm and Prosecution Firm Categories
Press Release
Recognition
News
Event
August 6th, 2020 | 1:30 pm EDT
Post-Grant for Practitioners Webinar | Just the Facts - A Mid-Year Review
Webinar
News
May 27, 2020
Lauren Degnan Quoted in Bloomberg Law Article, "Women Lawyers Find Arguing Patent Appeals ‘Strange and Lonely'"
Media Mention
News
Event
September 24th, 2020 | 12:00 pm EDT
2020 PTAB Bar Association Annual Conference
Speaking Engagement
Sponsorship
load more topics
TOP