Skip to content
  • Home
  • RSS
  • Contact
  • Client Extranet
  • 800.553.9910

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

  • Firm
    • Who We Are
    • Why Us?
    • Legal Project Management
    • Offices
    • Selected Matters
    • Diversity
    • Community
    • Rankings & Recognition
    • Trial Practice Center
    • Seminars & Events
    • Press Room
    • 75th Anniversary
  • Lawyers
  • Services
    • Business Litigation

      • Antitrust and Trade Regulation
      • Class Action Litigation
      • Construction
      • Creditor Representation - Insolvency
      • Employment
      • Entertainment and Media Litigation
      • Estate Trust and Succession Planning and Administration and Related Litigation
      • Franchise and Dealership
      • Government and Internal Investigations
      • Health Care Litigation
      • Real Estate Litigation
      • Securities and Financial Litigation

      Intellectual Property Litigation

      • Clean Technology
      • Copyright
      • Hatch-Waxman Litigation
      • International Trade Commission
      • Life Sciences
      • Patent Litigation
      • Patent Office Trials
      • Trade Secret
      • Trademark, Advertising and Brand Litigation

      Business Transactions

      • Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
      • Corporate Finance and Securities
      • Corporate Governance and Special Situations
      • Estate Trust and Succession Planning and Administration and Related Litigation
      • Franchise and Dealership
      • Mergers and Acquisitions
      • Strategic IP Monetization

      Concentrations

      • Electronic Discovery
      • International Arbitration
      • North Dakota
      • Water

      Industries

      • Food and Beverage
      • Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
      • Retail

      Personal Litigation

      • Mass Tort Attorneys
      • Medical Malpractice Attorneys
      • Personal Injury Attorneys
  • Publications
    • Articles
    • Legal Updates & Newsletters
    • IP Trend
    • News
  • Locations
    • Atlanta
    • Boston
    • Los Angeles
    • Minneapolis
    • Naples
    • New York
  • Careers
    • Associates
    • Summer Associates
    • Staff Attorneys
    • Project Review Attorneys
    • Staff
  1. Lawyers
  2. Jake Holdreith
Jake Holdreith
Print

Jake M. Holdreith

Partner
jmholdreith@rkmc.com 612.349.8483 vCard Address
    • Minneapolis
    • 800 LaSalle Avenue
    • 2800 LaSalle Plaza
    • Minneapolis, MN 55402-2015
    • New York
    • 601 Lexington Avenue
    • Suite 3400
    • New York, NY 10022-4611

My philosophy is to make legal issues serve business goals. Lawsuits shouldn't control you, you should control them. I am a strategist, a counselor, and a fighter.

Practice Areas

  • Government and Internal Investigations
  • Hatch-Waxman Litigation
  • Intellectual Property Litigation
  • Life Sciences
  • Patent Litigation
  • Trade Secret
  • Trademark, Advertising and Brand Litigation
  • Education
    • University of Iowa College of Law, J.D., Order of Coif (1990)
    • Macalester College, B.A., magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa (1987)
  • Languages
    • Fluent in German, has Russian and French skills
  • Professional Associations
    • Licensing Executives Society
    • Chair of the Patent Committee, Federal District Court for the District of Minnesota
    • American Bar Association
    • American Intellectual Property Lawyers Association
    • Federal Bar Association
    • Minnesota Intellectual Property Lawyers Association
    • Advisory Board, Bloomberg BNA Medical Devices Law & Industry Report
  • Bar Admissions
    • Minnesota
    • New York
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit
    • U.S. District Court, Colorado
    • U.S. District Court, Minnesota
    • U.S. District Court, Western District Wisconsin
    • U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
    • U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
    • Jake Holdreith - Lawyer of the Year 2012 Intellectual Property Litigation Minneapolis
  • Experience

    Mr. Holdreith counsels clients and tries complex lawsuits including intellectual property, regulatory and constitutional litigation. He has tried a number of large cases to jury verdicts. He understands the unique challenges of operating in the complex legal and regulatory environments. He has handled cases in the United States, Europe and Asia. He represents inventors large and small.

    Expand the “Selected Case Results” section for representative cases including multiple multi-million dollar verdicts. 

    Mr. Holdreith handles engagements based on contingent fees, alternative fee arrangements and traditional hourly billing. 

    Mr. Holdreith regularly speaks on topics such as trial skills and strategies, alternative fee agreements, presentation of experts in complex cases, and damages. 

    When not practicing law, Mr. Holdreith has ridden his bike to the summits of the Courchevel and the Col du Petit Saint Bernard. His wife, two daughters and two sons also keep him hopping.

  • Recognition*

    Show All
    • Named a "Life Science Star," LMG Life Sciences (2012)
    • Named "Minneapolis Intellectual Property Law Lawyer of the Year," Best Lawyers (2012)
    • Listed in The Best Lawyers in America (2011-2013 editions)
    • Named a "Minnesota Super Lawyer," Super Lawyers (2005-2006, 2011-2012)

     
    *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.

  • Selected Case Results**

    Show All

    Trial counsel in Personal Audio LLC v. Apple Inc., a patent infringement case in which a Texas federal jury awarded our client, Personal Audio LLC, $8 million in damages after finding that Apple's iPods infringed our client's patent for an audio player that can download or receive navigable playlists.  The verdict was announced on July 8, 2011.  The court also awarded prejudgment interest in the amount of $4,182,331 for a total judgment of $12,182,331. 

    Lead defense counsel for Upsher-Smith Laboratories in a copyright, trade dress, and patent  action concerning packaging for a pharmaceutical, and a related indemnification dispute. Resolved on confidential terms prior to significant litigation.

    Lead counsel for large beverage company in defense of a matter involving multiple patents. Resolved without litigation.

    Lead counsel for Upsher-Smith Laboratories in ongoing actions arising under the Hatch-Waxman Act.

    Counsel to a Requestor in an action naming the University of Texas at Austin under the Texas Public Information Act seeking disclosure of public records. Following several discovery motions and the depositions of records custodians, the matter was resolved by production of the requested records to our client.

    Lead trial counsel defending Upsher-Smith Laboratories in a patent suit to enjoin the sale of a pharmaceutical formulation. Following a two-day bench trial on the issues of infringement, validity and enforceability of the plaintiff's patent, the Court denied a request to temporarily enjoin the client from making and selling its products.  All claims asserted against our client were subsequently invalidated during an ex parte re-examination based on the same arguments and evidence we presented during the bench trial. The invalidity of the claims was summarily affirmed on appeal to the CAFC. The District Court action is Medicis Pharm. Corp. v. Upsher-Smith Labs., No. CV05-3458 (D. Az. filed October 27, 2005). The re-examination appeal is No. 2009-1291 (Reexamination No. 90/008,068).

    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 Mr. Holdreith's client, 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 Mr. Holdreith's 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 his client, 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.

    Lead counsel in complex patent litigation in several jurisdictions, including cross claims for infringement of seven patents on surgical methods and devices. Matter was settled on confidential terms involving cross-licenses.

    Defended ev3, Inc. in an action brought by Boston Scientific Corporation and Boston Scientific Scimed, Inc. for misappropriation of trade secrets and infringement of patents related to medical devices known as embolic protection filters.  Also represented ev3, Inc. in patent counterclaims against the Boston Scientific defendants involving embolic protection technology.  Claims for misappropriation of trade secrets were dismissed in part.  The patent claims and counterclaims were settled before trial on a confidential basis.

    Lead counsel for individual inventor and related small business in defense of an action by former employer seeking to gain control of our client’s subsequent invention and resulting business. The case was resolved prior to significant litigation through our successful motion on the plaintiff’s failure to join an indispensable party, resulting in a negotiated resolution of the claims.

    Obtained a ruling of federal preemption in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal as counsel to General Electric Company in a putative class action alleging state law claims of hearing loss by workers on locomotives. The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court ruling that the claims were preempted under the Federal Boiler Inspection Act, and dismissed all claims against our client. Law v. General Motors and General Electric, 114 F.3d 908 (9th Cir. 1997).

    Appellate counsel to Bicoastal Corporation in appeal of commercial dispute argued before the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Obtained summary affirmance for our client in a commercial dispute concerning an acquisition, dismissing claims by an unsuccessful bidder for an aerospace business alleging improper termination of the acquisition agreement and seeking a breakup fee. 87 F.3d 1330 (11th Cir. 1996).

    Counsel to Metropolitan Airport Commission in regulatory litigation concerning administrative rules promulgated by the Commission under its statutory powers. Obtained judgment that the Commission acted within its authority, and obtained dismissal of claims challenging rules for ground transportation operators as against challenges arising under the applicable stature, as well as claims sounding in due process and equal protection. Hyland v. Metropolitan Airport Com’n, 884 F.Supp. 334 (1995).

    Counsel to Wisconsin Central Railroad in regulatory litigation concerning Wisconsin’s “conductor law” governing the qualifications of conductors. Obtained a ruling that the state law challenged by our client is preempted by the Federal Railroad Safety Act. State v. Wisconsin Central Transp. Corp., 200 Wis.2d 450, 546 N.W.2d 206 (Ct. App. 1996).

    Lead trial counsel for ATEC associates in contested regulatory matter relater before the State of Minnesota Office Of Administrative Hearings, resulting in significant reduction of penalties under contested Administrative Penalty Order.

    Other cases include trial experience in complex, multi-million dollar patent litigation in multiple forums and before the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals. Technologies include, among others, medical devices, surgical methods, computer hardware and software, and pharmaceuticals.

    **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.

  • Publications and Speeches

    Show All

    Publications

    • Using Regression Models to Isolate the Value of a Patented Feature
      Intellectual Asset Management (May/June 2013)
    • IP: India, Generics and the Impact of Novartis’ Failed Gleevec Claims
      InsideCounsel (April 23, 2013)
    • IP: The Failure of Venue and Joinder Reform in Patent Litigation
      InsideCounsel (April 9, 2013)
    • IP Why Do Patent Cases Cost So Much to Get Through Trial
      InsideCounsel (March 26, 2013)
    • IP: Navigating The Divide
      InsideCounsel (March 12, 2013)
    • IP: Patent Office Trials - A Good Way To Deal With Bad Patents?
      InsideCounsel (February 26, 2013)
    • IP: 5 Things to Discuss at Your First Case Meeting with Outside Trial Counsel
      InsideCounsel (February 12, 2013)
    • Strategic Considerations for Enforcing Patents in International Disputes
      International IP Issues and Strategies: Leading Lawyers on Managing Intellectual Property Protection and Enforcement Efforts across Multiple Jurisdictions, Aspatore Special Report (2009)
    • The Handbook of Environmentally Conscious Manufacturing
      Richard D. Irwin, Inc. (1995) (co-authored)

    Book Chapters

    • International IP Issues and Strategies, Strategic Considerations for Enforcing Patents in International Disputes, Aspatore Books (2009)

    Speeches

    • Patent Infringement Litigation
      Patent Resources Group, Orlando, Florida (April 11-13, 2013)
    • Alternative Fee Arrangements (Webinar)
      LES Clean Tech Committee (August 13, 2012)
    • The Art of Arguing Markman
      Panel Discussion with The Honorable Judge Donovan Frank, The Honorable Judge Patrick Schiltz, and Jeff Ali, Federal Bar Association, Minnesota Chapter, Minneapolis, Minnesota (April 10, 2012)
    • Alternative Fee Arrangements (Webinar)
      LES Aerospace & Transportation Committee (March 7, 2012)
    • The New Patent Law and its Effect on Patent Litigation
      LES Minnesota Chapter, Minneapolis, Minnesota (November 8, 2011)
    • Retaining Contingency Counsel (Webinar)
      The Business Development Academy (September 15, 2011)
    • The Use of Re-Examination in District Court and Appellate Litigation
      IPO Chat Channel, Webinar (August 25, 2011)
    • Injunctions are Alive and Well After eBay
      AIPLA 2010 Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. (October 22, 2010)
    • Big Verdicts Under Scrutiny: Taking a Hard Look at the Damages Case
      Midwest IP Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (September 24, 2010)
    • Mastering Markman: A Strategic Approach to Claim Construction
      Patent Resources Group, New York, New York (September 22, 2010)
    • Building Trial Skills and Deposition Program CLE (Instructor)
      National Institute for Trial Advocacy, St. Paul, Minnesota (September 13 and 15, 2010)
    • Deposition Skills: Learning From the Worst - Handling Difficult Opposing Counsel During a Deposition (Webcast Presenter)
      Minnesota CLE (May 10, 2010)
    • How to Make an Alternative Fee Bid for Patent Litigation Work: The Essentials for Law Firm Attorneys Webinar
      Intellectual Property Owners Association (March 16, 2010)
    • How to Prepare for a Markman Hearing
      Patent Resources Group, Arlington, Virginia (February 11, 2010)
    • 360 View of the Plaintiff's Case
      The Art of Litigation and Trial Advocacy, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., New York, New York (October 27, 2009)
    • Surviving the New Economic Paradigm (Panel Discussion)
      Fourth Annual BNA/ABA Section of IP Patent Law Conference, Washington, D.C. (October 5, 2009)
    • Inter Partes Reexamination (Panel Discussion)
      2009 Midwest IP Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (September 24-25, 2009)
    • Finding the Right Expert at the Right Time (Panel Discussion)
      Minnesota CLE's First Litigation Advocacy Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (June 4-5, 2009)
    • Patent Infringement Litigation
      Patent Resources Group, Omni Orlando, Orlando, Florida (April 23-25, 2009)
    • Deposition Skills Series: Difficult Opposing Counsel (Webcast presentation)
      Minnesota CLE (November 12, 2008)
    • E-Discovery: An Advanced Discussion of Today's Most Important 'Make or Break' Practical Issues (Course Chair and Moderator of Panel with Chief Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm, Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron, and Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse)
      Minnesota CLE, Minneapolis, Minnesota (August 21, 2008)
    • Patent Infringement Litigation
      Patent Resources Group, Hyatt Regency Coconut Point, Bonita Springs, Florida (April 3-5, 2008)
    • Advanced E-Discovery
      Minnesota CLE, Minnesota CLE Conference Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota (August 20, 2007)
    • Patent Infringement Litigation
      Patent Resources Group, Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress, Orlando, Florida (April 16-18, 2007)
    • Year in Review: The Local Patent Rules
      Minnesota Federal Bar Association (Panel discussion with members of the bench) (February 1, 2007)
    • The Patent Prosecutor's Guide to Patent Litigation
      Midwest IP Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (September 25, 2006)
    • Hot Topics in IP Licensing: 2006 Infringement Licensing from Both Sides
      Minnesota CLE, MIPLA and the Licensing Executives Society – Minnesota Chapter (June 9, 2006)
    • Super CLE Week XXVI: IP Enforcement: A View from the Trenches of Patent Litigation
      University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, MN (March 14, 2006)
    • The Art of Arguing Markman
    • Panel Discussion with The Honorable Judge Donovan Frank, The Honorable Judge Patrick Schiltz, and Jeff Ali, Federal Bar Association, Minnesota Chapter, Minneapolis, Minnesota (April 10, 2012)
    • Alternative Fee Arrangements (Webinar)
      LES Aerospace & Transportation Committee (March 7, 2012)
    • The New Patent Law and its Effect on Patent Litigation
      LES Minnesota Chapter, Minneapolis, Minnesota (November 8, 2011)
    • Retaining Contingency Counsel (Webinar)
      The Business Development Academy (September 15, 2011)
    • The Use of Re-Examination in District Court and Appellate Litigation
      IPO Chat Channel, Webinar (August 25, 2011)
    • Injunctions are Alive and Well After eBay
      AIPLA 2010 Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C. (October 22, 2010)
    • Big Verdicts Under Scrutiny: Taking a Hard Look at the Damages Case
      Midwest IP Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (September 24, 2010)
    • Mastering Markman: A Strategic Approach to Claim Construction
      Patent Resources Group, New York, New York (September 22, 2010)
    • Building Trial Skills and Deposition Program CLE (Instructor)
      National Institute for Trial Advocacy, St. Paul, Minnesota (September 13 and 15, 2010)
    • Deposition Skills: Learning From the Worst - Handling Difficult Opposing Counsel During a Deposition (Webcast Presenter)
      Minnesota CLE (May 10, 2010)
    • How to Make an Alternative Fee Bid for Patent Litigation Work: The Essentials for Law Firm Attorneys (Webinar)
      Intellectual Property Owners Association (March 16, 2010)
    • How to Prepare for a Markman Hearing
      Patent Resources Group, Arlington, Virginia (February 11, 2010)
    • 360° View of the Plaintiff’s Case
      The Art of Litigation and Trial Advocacy, Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P., New York, New York (October 27, 2009)
    • Surviving the New Economic Paradigm (Panel Discussion)
      Fourth Annual BNA/ABA Section of IP Patent Law Conference, Washington, D.C. (October 5, 2009)
    • Inter Partes Reexamination (Panel Discussion)
      2009 Midwest IP Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (September 24-25, 2009)
    • Finding the Right Expert at the Right Time (Panel Discussion)
      Minnesota CLE's First Litigation Advocacy Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (June 4-5, 2009)
    • Patent Infringement Litigation
      Patent Resources Group, Omni Orlando, Orlando, Florida (April 23-25, 2009)
    • Deposition Skills Series: Difficult Opposing Counsel (Webcast presentation)
      Minnesota CLE (November 12, 2008)
    • E-Discovery: An Advanced Discussion of Today's Most Important 'Make or Break' Practical Issues (Course Chair and Moderator of Panel with Chief Magistrate Judge Paul W. Grimm, Magistrate Judge Janie S. Mayeron, and Magistrate Judge David J. Waxse)
      Minnesota CLE, Minneapolis, Minnesota (August 21, 2008)
    • Patent Infringement Litigation
      Patent Resources Group, Hyatt Regency Coconut Point, Bonita Springs, FL (April 3-5, 2008)
    • Advanced E-Discovery
      Minnesota CLE, Minnesota CLE Conference Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota (August 20, 2007)
    • Patent Infringement Litigation
      Patent Resources Group, Hyatt Regency Grand Cypress, Orlando, FL (April 16-18, 2007)
    • Year in Review: The Local Patent Rules
      Minnesota Federal Bar Association (Panel discussion with members of the bench) (February 1, 2007)
    • The Patent Prosecutor's Guide to Patent Litigation
      Midwest IP Institute, Minneapolis, Minnesota (September 25, 2006)
    • Hot Topics in IP Licensing 2006: Infringement Licensing from Both Sides
      Minnesota CLE, MIPLA and the Licensing Executives Society – Minnesota Chapter (June 9, 2006)
    • Super CLE Week XXVI: IP Enforcement: A View from the Trenches of Patent Litigation
      University of Minnesota Law School, Minneapolis, MN (March 14, 2006)
  • In the News

    Show All

    Quoted in:

    • "Gene Case a Big Win for Biotech Industry," InsideCounsel (October 30, 2012) 
    • "Broad Injunction Ups the Stakes in Kevlar Trade Secrets Case," The Litigation Daily (September 4, 2012) 
    • "Foreign Spies Target U.S. Economy," Credit Union Times (November 8, 2011)  
    • "Federal Circuit Rules Against Chinese Company, Upholds ITC Authority over Foreign Trade Secrets Theft," americanlawyer.com (October 12, 2011) 
    • "Arms Case Shows Perks of Trade Secrets Over Patents," Managing Patents (October 11, 2011) 
    • "Patent Reform's Reduced 'Best Mode' Requirement Creates Uncertainty," Corporate Counsel (October 10, 2011)

    • Attorneys Selected as 2013 Best Lawyers in America
    • Attorneys Named as "Minnesota Super Lawyers and Rising Stars 2012"
    • Q&A With Robins Kaplan's Jake Holdreith
    • Apple's New IPhone Greeted With Patent Suit
    • Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. Partners Named Minneapolis Best Lawyers “Lawyers of the Year”
    • Samsung, HTC, Others Sued Over Music Playlist Patent
    • Best Lawyers 2012 Names Firm Partners
    • Personal Audio Awarded $8 Million in Damages from Apple
    • Attorneys Named as "Minnesota Super Lawyers and Rising Stars 2011"
    • St. Clair Reaches Settlement with JVC and Panasonic in Patent Litigation
    • Federal Circuit Denies Writ of Mandamus Seeking Venue Transfer From Eastern District of Texas
    • Personal Audio Settles with Coby Electronics and Archos 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
  • Video and Audio Clips

    Show All

    • Advanced Intellectual Property Strategies for Defending Your Life Sciences IPO
      Close
      Robins, Kaplan, Miller, & Ciresi, L.L.P.

      Advanced Intellectual Property Strategies for Defending Your Life Sciences IPO

      One of the greatest fears of a life sciences company is the possibility of being sued for intellectual property violation shortly before their IPO. Such a lawsuit can destabilize market confidence in the company, raise questions on whether or not the product will ever come to market, or it can halt the IPO. Attorneys Cyrus Morton and Jake Holdreith explain what life science companies can do to mitigate and avoid these aforementioned risks.

    • International Remedies for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets
      Close
      Robins, Kaplan, Miller, & Ciresi, L.L.P.

      International Remedies for Misappropriation of Trade Secrets

      As businesses become more global, and employees more mobile, companies are increasingly realizing that their trade secrets are more at risk. Traditionally, companies would be faced with having to file state law actions on misappropriations of trade secrets, but things may be changing. Attorneys Jake Holdreith and Christopher Seidl discuss what has changed and the tools available to companies to address international misappropriation of trade secrets, as well as the role of the International Trade Commission (ITC), and how U.S. companies can obtain the necessary information needed to prosecute a claim within the ITC.

    • The Evolution of Trade Secret Damages
      Close
      Robins, Kaplan, Miller, & Ciresi, L.L.P.

      The Evolution of Trade Secret Damages

      There has been a notable uptick in the number and size of jury verdicts related to trade secrets. Over the past year, four of the top ten intellectual property verdicts have been related to claims of trade secret misappropriation. Attorneys Jake Holdreith and Christopher Seidl offer their thoughts on whether or not billion dollar trade secret verdicts are an anomaly or a trend, discuss some of the reasons there is an increase in the amount of civil trade secrets cases, and what we can expect to see in the future for trade secret cases.

  • Client Extranet
  • Alumni
  • Site Map
  • Legal Notice
  • Privacy Policy
  • Terms & Conditions
  • 800.553.9910
    • linkedin
    • rss

Firm

  • Offices
  • Selected Matters
  • Rankings & Recognition
  • Trial Practice Center

Lawyers

Services

    • Antitrust and Trade Regulation
    • Appraisal and Reference
    • Business Litigation
    • Class Action Litigation
    • Clean Technology
    • Client Technology Services
    • Commercial/Project Finance and Real Estate
    • Construction
    • Copyright
    • Corporate Finance and Securities
    • Corporate Governance and Special Situations
    • Creditor Representation - Insolvency
    • Electronic Discovery
    • Employment
    • Entertainment and Media Litigation
    • Estate Trust and Succession Planning and Administration and Related Litigation
    • Financial and Economic Consultants
    • Food and Beverage
    • Franchise and Dealership
    • Government and Internal Investigations
    • Hatch-Waxman Litigation
    • Health Care Litigation
    • Insurance and Catastrophic Loss
    • Intellectual Property Litigation
    • International Arbitration
    • International Trade Commission
    • Investigative Services
    • Legal Nurse Consultants
    • Life Sciences
    • Mass Tort Attorneys
    • Medical Malpractice Attorneys
    • Mergers and Acquisitions
    • North Dakota
    • Paralegals
    • Patent Litigation
    • Patent Office Trials
    • Personal Injury Attorneys
    • Real Estate Litigation
    • Retail
    • Science Advisors
    • Securities and Financial Litigation
    • Strategic IP Monetization
    • Trade Secret
    • Trademark, Advertising and Brand Litigation
    • Trial Support
    • Water
  • Diversity
  • Careers
  • Publications
  • Offices
  • Contact

© Copyright 2013 Robins, Kaplan, Miller & Ciresi L.L.P. All Rights Reserved. Attorney Advertising. Prior Results Do Not Guarantee A Similar Outcome.