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

Jamie primarily focuses her practice on intellectual property litigation, including patent, false advertising and trademark litigation. She has represented clients ranging from individual business owners to Fortune 500 companies in matters involving numerous technologies ranging from MRI technology to windshield washer fluid. Jamie uses her technical background, along with the technical expertise of other members of the firm, to help clients develop their case and develop an appropriate strategy to achieve their business goals. 

Jamie attended law school at the University of Minnesota, where she graduated magna cum laude. While in law school, Jamie also attended graduate school where she received her M.S. in Pharmacology. Jamie’s Master’s project was focused on studying the toxic effect of DNA-Protein crosslinks caused by various types of drugs. 

Represented Nilfisk-Advance, Inc. in a successful arbitration before the National Advertising Division of the Council of Better Business Bureaus, the advertising industry's self-regulator forum, on claims that Tennant Company falsely advertised the performance and environmental benefits of its "ec-H2O" technology.

Counsel for trademark holder Best Buy in trademark infringement and dilution cases in courts throughout the United States enforcing rights in the BEST BUY and GEEK SQUAD marks, including: 

•  BBY Solutions, Inc. et al. v. Schwartz, et al.  (E.D. New York 11-cv-00947 - Judge E. Thomas Boyle) 
•  BBY Solutions, Inc., et al. v. Karrie-Lee Karreman, et al. (D. Minn. 10-cv-4726 - Judge  Michael J. Davis) 

Forest Laboratories, Inc. v. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. Represented client in litigation to bring generic Bystolic® (nebivolol) to market. Settled for value.

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.

**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.