Bonnie Grant focuses her practice on patent litigation. She has experience in a wide range of litigation and trial matters, including significant experience in patent litigation in the Eastern District of Texas and the Western District of Wisconsin. Additionally, Ms. Grant draws on her background in mechanical engineering and computer software for her experience in patent prosecution and counseling.
While an engineering student, Ms. Grant worked as a technician at Applied Research Laboratories, writing and debugging software for the Air Force regarding their Global Positioning System satellites.
Professional & Community Activities
Journal of Intellectual Property Law, Executive Articles Editor (2003-2004)
Women Law Student Association, President (2003-2004)
Industries
Manufacturing
Experience
Intellectual asset acquisition and transactions assistance to an office supplies manufacturer, Assisted client, a manufacturer of office supplies, in monitoring published patent applications and issued patents. The firm was thus able to provide the client with advice as to what technological areas were being pursued within the industry.
Meridian Enterprises Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of DaimlerChrysler Corporation, BBDO Detroit, Inc., and BBDO Worldwide, Inc. in this case in which Meridian Enterprises Corporation alleged infringement of U.S. Patent No. 5,025,372. After completion of significant discovery and briefing on claim construction issues, the parties resolved the dispute just prior to the Markman hearing. The court entered an order granting a stipulation of dismissal filed by the parties in September 2006.
Meridian Enterprises Corp. v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., No. 04-CV-01467JCH (E.D. Mo. filed Oct. 25, 2004).
Biopolymer Engineering Inc. v. Immunocorp, The firm served as lead counsel for Biotec Pharmacon, ASA, a Norwegian pharmaceutical company, in patent infringement litigation initiated by patent owner Biothera, a Minnesota corporation, in the District of Minnesota in Minneapolis. The 14 patents involved in the litigation relate to, among other things, beta glucan compositions for immunotherapy. The District Court granted summary judgment of non-infringement as to 12 of the 14 patents, and the case subsequently settled.
Biopolymer Eng'g, Inc. v. Immunocorp, No. 05-00536 (D. Minn. filed Mar. 14, 2005).
Intellectual property counseling for Smith & Nephew, Provides patent procurement and counseling services to Smith & Nephew, an industry leader in the development of advanced medical devices and implants. The company offers technically innovative products in areas such as orthopedic reconstruction and trauma, endoscopy, advanced wound management and biologics. Provide counsel and advice in all aspects of the company's business, including helping shape its overall patent strategy. As part of this, the firm takes an active role in identifying and protecting innovations, as well as evaluating third-party intellectual property rights. Further, the firm provides counseling in connection with the company's patent licensing and acquisition activities and has represented the company in several patent infringement matters.
Intellectual asset acquisitions and transactions for The Weather Channel, Represented The Weather Channel in intellectual asset acquisitions and transactions. The innovations allow it to provide targeted content to users, as well as to offer more targeted advertising opportunities to their sponsors. The firm worked closely with the company to seek patent protection for their innovations regarding the creation and delivery of content.
adidas America Inc. v. Akeva LLC, The firm is lead counsel for adidas in multi-defendant patent litigation relating to more than a dozen patents on athletic footwear.
Asics America Corporation, et al. v. Akeva LLC, No. 1:09-cv-00135 (M.D.N.C. filed Feb. 21, 2009).
Taurus IP, LLC v. Chrysler Group and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, The firm served as lead counsel on behalf of Chrysler Group and Mercedes-Benz USA LLC in connection with a string of successes in the United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin and the United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas against related entities Orion, Taurus and ST Sales Tech. The plaintiff entities, who had asserted several patents against Chrysler and Mercedes after a settlement agreement was in place, were put on the defensive when we asserted counterclaims for breach of a previous settlement agreement. The United States District Court, Western District of Wisconsin granted summary judgment for Chrysler and MBUSA finding non-infringement, invalidity and dismissing all the patent-related claims. Later a jury returned a verdict on liability in favor of Chrysler and MBUSA on the breach of contract claims. After a finding that the plaintiff had not acted in good faith, the court then awarded contract damages and legal fees. Related suits were later dismissed. Appeal pending. (Judge Crabb and Judge Davis).
Taurus IP, LLC v. Chrysler, LLC and Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC, No. 07-0158 (W.D. Wis. filed Mar. 20, 2007); Orion IP, LLC v. DaimlerChrysler (E.D. Tex.) and Orion IP, LLC v. MBUSA (E.D. Tex.).
Wacoh Company v. Chrysler et al., Served as lead counsel on behalf of Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC who was sued in the United States District Court, Eastern District of Michigan by the plaintiff, Wacoh Company. The plaintiff alleged that Mercedes and other automobile manufacturers infringed U.S. Patent No. 6,512,364, which relates to accelerometers used in the safety belt and anti-lock systems in vehicles. After a thorough investigation we determined that the suppliers of the accelerometers were responsible for indemnifying the claims of infringement against Mercedes. Thus, we successfully negotiated for a dismissal of Mercedes from the litigation.
Nike Inc. v. adidas America Inc., Lead counsel defending adidas in a patent infringement suit brought by Nike in the Eastern District of Texas related to Nike Shox technology and the use of electronic sensors in shoes. After we obtained a favorable Markman ruling for adidas, Nike stipulated to non-infringement by adidas of the Shox patent. We successfully negotiated a favorable settlement agreement for adidas prior to trial. (Judge Clark).
Nike, Inc. v. adidas America, Inc., et al., 479 F. Supp. 2d 664 (E.D. Tex. 2007).
*Experience gained by attorney prior to joining Kilpatrick Townsend
Publications
01 January 2009, Reexamination Tactics: Present and Future
Source: Intellectual Property Desk Reference, Other Publications
01 November 2008, Beware the Trolls
Source: Patent World, Articles
01 August 2008, A Survey of the Doctrine of Prosecution Laches
Source: IPL Newsletter, Articles
01 December 2007, Patent Infringement by Joint Action Under Federal Circuit Opinions
Source: 18 Intellectual Property Litigation 2, Other Publications
01 January 2006, Patent Opinions: What You Should Know to Increase Effectiveness and Reduce Expense
Source: Intellectual Property Desk Reference, Other Publications