Professionals

• Experience
• Activities & Memberships
• Articles & Presentations
• Recognition

Experience

Representative Intellectual Property Cases:

Trademark/Trade Dress Infringement Cases

• Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing v. Shurtape Technologies, Inc., et al. (District of Minnesota). Represented defendant in a trademark/trade dress infringement action arising out of defendant's use of color on masking tape products. 
• Hormel Foods Corp. v. Cereol, et al. (District of Minnesota). Represented olive oil manufacturer in breach of contract action combined with allegations of trademark infringement.
• Edina Realty, Inc. v. TheMLSonline.com (District of Minnesota). Represented defendant in a trademark infringement action raising cutting-edge legal issues relating to use of search terms on the internet.

Patent Cases

• Digi International, Inc. v. Lantronix, Inc. / Lantronix, Inc. v. Digi International, Inc. Represented computer hardware and software networking manufacturer in four inter-connected patent infringement matters venued in the Eastern District of Texas, Center District of California and District of Minnesota. Client was a plaintiff in some case and defendant in others.
• Full Circle International, Inc. v. Wettstein, et al. (District of Minnesota). Represented plaintiff in patent infringement/declaratory judgment action involving construction tools for use by painting contractors.
• F&G Scrolling Mouse, LLC v. Microsoft, Inc., et al. (Western District of Washington-Seattle). Represented defendant in patent infringement action relating to scrolling mouse technology.

Trade Secret Cases

• BondPro Corporation v. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp. (Western District of Wisconsin). Represented defendant in misappropriation of trade secret action involving power generation technology.
  

Representative Appeals:

Federal Circuit Courts of Appeal

• BondPro v. Siemens Westinghouse Power Corp., 463 F.2d 702 (7th Cir. 2006). Appeal from the district court's entry of order for judgment notwithstanding the verdict; affirmed.
• United States, ex. Rel., Kinny v. Stoltz, et al., 327 F.3d 671 (8th Cir. 2003) cert. den. In this False Claims Act, the 8th Circuit upheld the lower court's finding that relator was not an original source of the allegations because he had no direct knowledge of the alleged wrongdoings.
• The Travelers Indemnity Company of Illinois v. Millard Refrigerated Services, Inc., 339 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 2003). The court found that an insurer had a duty to defend and indemnify a property manager as an additional insured under policies covering the leased premises.
• Rainforest Café, Inc. v. EklecCo, L.L.C., 340 F.3d 544 (8th Cir. 2003). The court upheld the district court's dismissal of this action for declaratory judgment in a commercial lease dispute.
• United States of America v. Michael Jay Molzen, 382 F.3d 805 (8th Cir. 2004). In this criminal appeal, the court held that the failure to advise the defendant that restitution could be imposed was a harmless error.

Minnesota Supreme Court

• Diubak v. Mott, 503 N.W. 2d 771, 62 USLW 2102 (Minn., Aug. 6, 1993) (No. C7-91-2517). In Dziubak, a case of first impression in Minnesota, the Minnesota Supreme Court held that public defenders are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for legal malpractice. This decision was not only one of first impression, it was against the trend in a majority of states at that time.
• Color-Ad Packaging, Inc. v. Commissioner of Revenue, 428 N.W.2d 806, 7 UCC Rep. Serv. 2d 60 (Minn., Sept. 16, 1998) (No. C8-87-2103). In Color-Ad Packaging, a statutory interpretation decision, the Supreme Court divided 4-3, holding that the taxpayer was entitled to an incentive-based property tax rebate.

Minnesota Court of Appeals

• Alderson v. Dayton, 1955 WL 46272 (Minn. Ct. App., Feb. 7, 1995) (No. CX-94-1022). In Alderson, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the State Auditor was absolutely privileged from suit for defamation and that his subordinates were qualifiedly privileged. 
• Anjoorian v. Minneapolis Department of Public Safety, 1997 WL 527233 (Minn. Ct. App., Aug. 26, 1997) (No. CX-97-242). In Anjoorian, the Court of Appeals construed the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act to classify as public, data gathered by the Gambling Enforcement Division during a license investigation, once the investigation was closed.
• Dziubak v. Mott, 486 N.W.2d 837 (Minn. Ct. App. 1992) (No. C7-91-2517). In Dziubak, the Court of Appeals rejected the State's argument that public defenders are entitled to absolute immunity from suit for legal malpractice. The Minnesota Supreme Court later reversed.
• Erickson v. County of Clay, 451 N.W.2d 666 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990) (No. C4-89-1289). In Erickson, the Court of Appeals applied defamation privileges to claims regarding alleged violations of grand jury secrecy.
• Estate of Benson by Benson v. Minnesota Bd. of Medical Practice, 526 N.W.2d 634, 23 Media L. Rep. 1475 (Minn. Ct. App., Jan 31, 1995) (No. C1-94-1765). In Benson, the Minnesota Court of Appeals held that the claim by an individual for damages resulting from the alleged violation of his data practices rights is a personal injury claim which terminates upon the death of the individual.
• Frank's Livestock & Poultry Farm, Inc. v. City of Wells, 431 N.W.2d 574 (Minn. Ct. App. 1988) (No. C5-88-1078). Frank's Livestock involved an application of the public duty doctrine to a claim against the State Fire Marshal's office for failure to help extinguish a building fire. The Court of Appeals also found that a statutory claim for interference with fire fighting personnel did not create a private cause of action and in any event did not apply to the facts at issue in this case.
• In Re: Alexandria Accident of February 8, 1994, 561 N.W.2d 543 (Minn. Ct. App. 1997) (Nos. C7-96-2178, C9-96-2179). In this case, the Court of Appeals affirmed an award of summary judgment to the State in this mass tort action in which seven people were killed and over 70 were injured. The State prevailed on summary judgment after having instituted an interpleader and successfully bifurcated liability and damages.
• Lason v. State, 451 N.W.2d 213 (Minn. Ct. App. 1990) (No. C9-89-1309). In Larson, the Court of Appeals applied traditional defamation privileges to affirm summary judgment in favor of the State of Minnesota.
• LePage v. State, 1997 WL 714712 (Minn. Ct. App., Nov. 18, 1997) (No. C1-97-503). In this case of first impression, the Minnesota Court of Appeals applied trespasser liability standards to prohibit a lawsuit brought by a pedestrian who had inadvertently wandered onto, and then jumped off, an interstate highway off-ramp.
• Light v. State, 1992 WL 31364 (Minn. Ct. App., Feb. 25, 1992) (Nos. C8-91-1604, C8-91-1974). In Light, the Court of Appeals applied discretionary immunity to bar claims of negligent highway design, signing, and maintenance.
• McDevitt v. Tilson, 453 N.W.2d 53, 17 Media L. Rep. 2156 (Minn. Ct. App., Mar. 20, 1990) (Nos. C1-89-1766, C3-89-1767). In McDevitt, the Court of Appeals rejected a claim by the governmental defendants that they were absolutely privileged from a defamation claim brought by the curator of the marine mammal program at the Minnesota Zoological Gardens.
• McEwen v. Burlington Northern R. Co., Inc., 494 N.W.2d 313 (Minn. Ct. App. 1993) (No. C5-92-1148). The court construed a state statute to preempt any and all claims of negligent design against the State of Minnesota arising out of railroad crossing accidents. Prior to this decision, despite the existence of that statute, the State had been subject to suit for claims of inadequate grade crossing warning devices.
• Musgjerd v. State, 1990 WL 10685 (Minn. Ct. App., Feb. 13, 1990) (No. C4-89-1289). The Court of Appeals reversed a jury's verdict finding of liability, but no damages, in a case involving allegations of negligent highway design.
• Mancino v. Hennepin County, 1987 WL 18782 (Minn. Ct. App., Oct. 27, 1987) (No. C5-87-678). In Mancino, the Court of Appeals upheld the trial court's finding that the plaintiff had failed to establish a prima facie case of bailment.
• Rasivong v. Lakewood Community College, 504 N.W.2d 778, 85 Ed. Law Rep. 270 (Minn. Ct, App., Aug. 17, 1993) (No. C3-93-249). The Court of Appeals held that discretionary immunity barred claims for negligent security and failure to prevent criminal acts of third parties.
• Schaeffer v. State, 444 N.W.2d 876 (Minn. Ct. App. 1989) (No. C9-89-1028). In Schaeffer, the Minnesota Court of Appeals found that discretionary immunity did not apply to claims of negligent guard rail design on the Interstate. 
• Schulte v. St. Cloud University, 1994 WL 6845 (Minn. Ct. App., Jan. 11, 1994) (No. CX-93-1477). The Court of Appeals applied premises liability principles to bar plaintiff's claim against the State.