Robins, Kaplan, Miller, & Ciresi, L.L.P.

Melding meticulous attention to detail and incisive, big-picture strategic vision, Becky Thorson leads complex patent infringement, trade secret and other intellectual property and business litigation.  She has represented clients as both plaintiffs and defendants, serving as trial counsel in multiple national forums. Ms. Thorson’s representations encompass a diverse range of industries and technologies including computer hardware and software, medical device, digital camera innovations, and patent-protected building materials. Ms. Thorson has also developed an in-depth understanding of the business and intellectual property issues specific to the food and beverage industry including food composition and processing technology.  She also advises clients on the practical implications of the America Invents Act.

Ms. Thorson strives to help her clients avoid legal issues, and if they arise, knows solutions to resolve those issues both in and outside of the courtroom. She advises clients on IP evaluation and monetization strategies. Her experience includes leading multiple licensing campaigns and negotiating and drafting licensing and other agreements to conclude IP litigation and generate substantial revenue. She is also knowledgeable about the intersection of IP and issues related to business and employment law and helps clients resolve those and related issues.

Ms. Thorson dedicates significant time to serving the legal profession and her community. She was recently appointed by the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota to chair the District Court’s Federal Practice Committee through 2016.  She is Editor-in-Chief of the Federal Bar Association’s magazine The Federal Lawyer. She has taught pre-trial litigation as an adjunct professor at William Mitchell and currently serves on its Intellectual Property Advisory Board. She also serves on the boards of Disability Justice and the Friends of Children Foundation and is currently Special Counsel to the YWCA of Minneapolis, having served as a member of its Board of Directors from 2007 to 2010. In addition, she coordinates multiple continuing legal education programs designed to improve access to justice for people with disabilities, including her firm's annual Disability Justice Seminar. She also chairs the firm’s Hiring Committee.

• Named one of the "Top 100 Women Super Lawyers," Minnesota Law & Politics (2007)
• Named a "Minnesota Super Lawyer," Super Lawyers (2005-2012)

 
*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.

Trial counsel in St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Canon, Inc. et al., No. 03-241 (D. Del., filed February 28, 2003) a case in which a federal jury in Wilmington, Delaware awarded St. Clair, $34.7 million after a finding that Canon infringed four patents relating to digital camera technology. The verdict was announced on October 8, 2004.

Trial Counsel in St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Fuji, Ltd. et al., No. 03-241 (D. Del., filed February 28, 2003) a case in which a federal jury in Wilmington, Delaware awarded our client, St. Clair, $3 million after a finding that Fuji infringed four patents relating to digital camera technology. The verdict was announced on October 25, 2004.  After a long and tortured post-trial history the verdict was reversed by the Federal Circuit on a claim construction issue.

Trial Counsel in St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants, Inc. v. Sony Corp. et al., No. 01-557 (D. Del., filed Aug. 14, 2001) a case in which a federal jury in Wilmington, Delaware awarded St. Clair, $25 million after a finding that Sony infringed four patents relating to digital camera technology. The verdict was announced on February 25, 2003. The parties entered into a license agreement two days later, the terms of which are confidential.

Represented plaintiff Andersen Corporation in overturning a district court decision granting the defendants summary judgment and finding that claims of the asserted patent were invalid as obvious. The Federal Circuit's decision was one of the first post-KSR District Court findings of obviousness to be reversed by the Federal Circuit. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' petition for certiorari. 2007-1536, 2008-WL4927431, (Fed. Cir. Nov. 19, 2008), cert. denied. 

Other cases include trial experience in complex, multi-million dollar intellectual property litigation in multiple forums and various technologies, including computer hardware and software.

**Past results are reported to provide the reader with an indication of the type of litigation in which we practice and does 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.

• Twin Cities Diversity in Practice, Board of Directors
• Disability Justice, Board of Directors
• The Friends of Children Foundation, Board of Directors and Past President
• YWCA, Board of Directors (2007-2010)

• Attorneys Named as "Minnesota Super Lawyers and Rising Stars 2012"
• Attorneys Named as "Minnesota Super Lawyers and Rising Stars 2011"
• Martin R. Lueck is Minnesota’s Top Super Lawyer 2010
• St. Clair Reaches Settlement with JVC and Panasonic in Patent Litigation
• St. Clair Reaches Settlement with Pantech in Patent Litigation
• St. Clair Reaches Settlement with Samsung in Patent Litigation
• Jury Awards St. Clair Intellectual Property Consultants in Patent Infringement Case Against Fuji

• Interpartes Review: Is it Right for You?
  Close

  Robins, Kaplan, Miller, & Ciresi, L.L.P.

  Interpartes Review: Is it Right for You?

  The America Invents Act (AIA) created a number of changes in how we obtain and enforce patents. But perhaps more substantially it changed the way that individuals can challenge the validity of patents. The AIA created a number of post grant proceedings, one of them, Interpartes Review, allows individuals to challenge the validity of patents before the PTO. Attorneys Cyrus Morton and Becky Thorson explain the Interpartes Review procedure, including what it is and how it’s different, along with the advantages and disadvantages of using the new Interpartes Review process.

• The Intersection Between Intellectual Property Law and Employment Law
  Close

  Robins, Kaplan, Miller, & Ciresi, L.L.P.

  The Intersection Between Intellectual Property Law and Employment Law

  Employment law often becomes the centerpiece in intellectual property litigation. Understanding how these two disciplines intertwine can be critical to winning or losing a case. Attorneys Becky Thorson and Christopher Seidl shed light on the ways in which employment law finds its way into patent cases, while also discussing the ways employers can protect their ownership rights and inventions, and the steps employers can take to protect their trade secrets throughout the employment process.