Karen Cassidy is a partner in our Orange County office. Her practice is focused on litigation with an emphasis on patents, trademarks, trade secrets, unfair competition claims, and data privacy claims.
Karen has represented clients in a variety of industries in district courts throughout the country and before the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. She has extensive experience in the area of pharmaceutical litigation, particularly litigation involving Abbreviated New Drug Applications under the Hatch-Waxman Act. In addition to her work in the pharmaceutical industry, Karen has experience litigating cases relating to data privacy claims, including the defense of class actions in this area.
Karen is also active in firm management, serving on the firm’s Executive Committee and Litigation Committee.
Prior to joining the firm, Karen earned her law degree from the George Washington University Law School and a bachelor’s degree in chemistry from Carroll College. Karen is also a registered patent attorney.
Co-Author, "The Supreme Court Holds that Non-Public Sales May Trigger the "On-Sale" Bar Under the America Invents Act," Knobbe Martens Firm Alert
Author, Litigation Blog
- It’s a Date – Twitter Reply Proves Prior Art Publication Date
- An Old Method Using an Old Product From a New Source Is Not New
- Natural Law and Nothing More
- PTAB Must Evidence Decision Path During IPR Proceedings
- Improvements to Operation of an Apparatus Were Not Abstract
- The Definition of “Half-Liquid” Is Only Half Baked
- Preliminary Injunction Denied Because of Failure to Draft Precise Terms That Capture the Intent of the Parties
- PTAB Cannot Shortcut the Two-Step Obviousness Analysis
- Intrinsic Evidence Establishing the Context of a Claim Term Can Limit Claim Scope
- USPTO Guidance Cannot Modify or Supplant the Alice/Mayo Framework
- Ignoring Antecedent Basis in the Claim Results in Reversal of Patentability Determination
- An Inference That Compounds With Common Properties Share Other Related Properties Should Not Be Rejected as a Matter of Law at Summary Judgement
- Registration of a Multi-Color Mark Does Not Require Acquired Distinctiveness
- Secret Third-Party Processes May Not Trigger Pre-AIA § 102 Public Knowledge or Use Bars
- Pre-Complaint Damages for Willful Infringement Sunk by Failure to Comply With Marking Statute
- Non-Prior Art Evidence May Be Used to Prove Inherency
- Specification’s Narrow Description of the Invention Results in Disavowal of Claim Scope
- Publication Shelved in Publicly Accessible Library Was Accessible to the Public and Therefore Available as Prior Art
- A “Substantially Equivalent” Disclosure May Satisfy the Written Description Requirement
- The Doctrine of Equivalents May Apply Despite Restriction Requirements and Narrow Claiming
- VERSATOP SUPPORT SYSTEMS v. GEORGIA EXPO, INC.
- ENDO PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC.
- GRUNENTHAL GMBH v. ALKEM LABORATORIES LIMITED
- CHARGEPOINT, INC. v. SEMACONNECT, INC.
- DR. FALK PHARMA GMBH v. GENERICO, LLC
- DUNCAN PARKING TECHNOLOGIES v. IPS GROUP, INC.
- SPINEOLOGY, INC., V. WRIGHT MEDICAL TECHNOLOGY INC.
- HAMILTON BEACH BRANDS, INC. v. F'REAL FOODS, LLC
- ANCORA TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. HTC AMERICA, INC.
- YEDA RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CO., LTD. V. MYLAN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. & TEVA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. V. SANDOZ INC.
- HYATT v. PATO
- WORLDS INC. V. BUNGIE, INC.
- SAP AMERICA, INC. v. INVESTPIC, LLC
- IN RE MAATITA
- BLACKBIRD TECH LLC V. ELB ELECTRONICS, INC.
- POWER INTEGRATIONS, INC., V. FAIRCHILD SEMICONDUCTOR
- Stone Basket Innovations, LLC v. Cook Medical, LLC
- D THREE ENTERPRISES, LLC v. SUNMODO CORPORATION
- MEDTRONIC, INC. v. BARRY
- WESTERNGECO LLC v. ION GEOPHYSICAL CORPORATION
- KNOWLES ELECTRONICS LLC V. IANCU
- OTTAH V. FIAT CHRYSLER
- POLARIS INDUSTRIES, INC. v. ARCTIC CAT, INC.
- XITRONIX CORPORATION v. KLA-TENCOR CORPORATION
- MERK SHARP & DOHME CORP. v. AMNEAL PHARMACEUTICALS LLC
- ADVANCED VIDEO TECHNOLOGIES LLC v. HTC CORPORATION ET AL.
- ITC Issues Limited Exclusion Order of Diebold ATMs Following Finding of Patent Infringement
- Government Ordered to Pitch-In $12.5 Million to Resolve a Patent Dispute Involving Advanced Aerospace Technologies, Inc.’s Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Retrieval System Technology
- Jury Hits Hughes Network with $21 Million Verdict for Infringement of a Satellite Communications Technology Patent Belonging to an International Defense Company
Quoted Media, Articles