Overview
Kendall guides clients in a broad range of cases, including patents, trade secrets, and contract matters. Kendall is an accomplished trial attorney, having litigated trade secret and patent infringement claims. In addition to her litigation practice, Kendall does opinion work and advises clients on a variety of intellectual property matters, including licensing and strategies to settle disputes without litigation. Kendall has handled disputes involving a wide array of technologies and products, including consumer electronics, integrated circuits, signal boosters, computer software, and medical devices.
Kendall also has extensive experience with proceedings before the Patent and Trademark Office, including inter partes review (IPR) proceedings and reexaminations. She has successfully defeated IPRs on behalf of patent owners, including establishing an invention date preceding the prior art. She has also guided clients accused of infringement in leveraging IPRs to obtain favorable settlements.
In 2017, Kendall was co-chair in a trade secret misappropriation dispute that successfully resulted in a finding of trade secret misappropriation and an award of punitive damages. In 2015, Kendall was also selected to lead jury trials, motions, and felony preliminary hearings as a trial attorney with the Orange County District Attorney’s Trial Attorney Partnership program.
The Orange County Business Journal recognized Kendall among the top “Women in STEM” in 2024.
Kendall received her law degree from University of Notre Dame, and a bachelor’s degree in electrical engineering from Cal Poly, San Luis Obispo.
Education
- University of Notre Dame Law School (J.D., 2012), cum laude
- California Polytechnic State University - San Luis Obispo (CAL POLY) (B.S. Electrical Engineering, 2009), cum laude, Tau Beta Pi, Eta Kappa Nu
Recognition
Awards & Honors
- Recognized as “Women in STEM” by Orange County Business Journal (2024)
- Named to Benchmark Litigation “40 & Under” List (2023-2025)
News & Insights
Articles
“Metaswitch Networks Ordered to Pay Over $8 Million and Ongoing Royalties to Genband for Voice Over IP Technology,” The Licensing Journal (July 2018)
“The U.S. Supreme Court on Induced Infringement and Its Impact on Patent Strategy,” Journal of the Japanese Group of the International Association for the Protection of Intellectual Property (AIPPI), Vol. 61 No. 2 (February 2016)
Author, Knobbe Martens Litigation Blog
- Fireball Frenzy: When First Registering a Mark, Genericness of a Mark Is Determined at the Time of Registration
- Collateral Estoppel Does Not Apply When the Prior Proceeding Applies a Lower Burden of Proof
- Performing Claimed Features Faster Than Humans by Using Generic Computers Is Not Sufficient as an Improvement to Computer Technology
- AIA Patents May Not Be Challenged in Interference Proceedings
- Patent Directed to System for Controlling Access to Drugs Is Not Listable in the Orange Book
- Evidence of Actual Physician Practice is Relevant in Determination of Direct Infringement
- The Statutory Presumption of Validity of a Federally Registered Trade Dress Applies Even Where the Trademark Examiner May Not Have Followed PTO Procedures
- Federal Circuit Denies Mandamus Regarding Venue Dispute With Remote Workers
- Duplicative-Litigation Doctrine: Proper Motion Practice Is Essential to Avoid Dismissal of Duplicative Complaints
- Motive Matters – Forum Shopping Can Lead To Attorneys’ Fees
- Is Evidence of Generic Industry Skepticism Enough to Preclude a Finding of a Motivation to Combine?
- Required Testing as Part of an Offer for Sale Does Not Preclude a Finding of a Commercial Sale for On-Sale Bar Defense
- Effects of Proximity, Plurals, and Passive Voice for Claim Construction (March 2022)
- Written Description: What Is the Proper “Dosage” to Satisfy This Requirement? (December 2021)
- Federal Circuit Holds That the PTAB Does Not Have an Impermissible Incentive to Institute IPRs (October 2021)
- Patentee Failed to Apportion Licenses to Bundled Patents to Establish Royalties (September 2021)
- One Abstract Idea + Another Abstract Idea = An Abstract Idea (August 2021)
- Copying From a Copyrighted Computer Program May Be Fair Use to the Extent Needed to Promote Adoption of the Use of Accrued Talents in Creating a New Software Platform (April 2021)
- You Missed a Spot: The PTAB Should Consider All Presented Arguments and Evidence in Obviousness Determinations – (February 2021)
- No Simulating Alice Requirements: Application of Abstract Ideas Alone Cannot Transform Patent Ineligible Subject Matter – (December 2020)
- Venue in Hatch-Waxman Cases Tied to Acts of ANDA Submission (November 2020)
- Federal Circuit Has Jurisdiction to Review Joinder Decisions in IPRs (September 2020)
- Eleventh Amendment Protects States From Involuntary Joinder in Patent Suits (July 2020)
- A Mark Styled “Generic.Com” May Be Trademark Eligible (July 2020)
- Pencil Shaped Chalk Holder Is a Non-Copyrightable Idea (May 2020)
- Claims Directed at Longstanding Commercial Practices Do Not Pass Step One of the § 101 Test (May 2020)
- Sharing Active Moiety With an FDA-Approved Product Is Not Enough to Be Considered an Approved Product for the Purposes of Patent Term Extension Under 35 U.S.C. § 156 (April 2020)
- En Banc Federal Circuit Denies Rehearing of Holding That Severance of an Unconstitutional Restriction in the America Invents Act Is Consistent With Congressional Intent and Is the Least Disruptive Solution (March 2020)
- A Collision of Patents, Copyrights, and Piracy on the High Seas (March 2020)
- Express License of Patent Includes Implied License of Continuations (February 2020)
- Examiner Amendments Can Trigger Prosecution History Estoppel (January 2020)
- Patent Applicant Not Required to Pay PTO’s Attorneys’ Fees in District Court Suit to Obtain a Patent (December 2019)