Primary Area(s) of Practice

• Intellectual Property & Technology

Associations

Minnesota State Bar Association

Awards & Honors

• “Best Lawyers in America,”  Litigation - Intellectual Property, 2026
• Benchmark 40 & Under Hot List 2018-2019
• Minnesota Super Lawyers List , 2020-current
• Top Women Attorneys in Minnesota List, 2018-current
• Minnesota Rising Stars List, 2017-2019
• North Star Lawyer

Professional Presentations

• AI the Artist, Writer, and Musician, AI & the Law, Minnestoa CLE Center (Oct. 2024)
• Artificial Intelligence and Conception: Navigating questions of invention validity and copyright ownership in a transformed world, ACC Annual Conference (2024)
• Section 101 Update and Analysis of American Axle v. Neapco (Minnesota Intellectual Property Law Association, May 2023) 
• A Marvel-ous Copyright War, Co-Presenter, Entertainment Law Section of the Minnesota Bar (2023)
• Inter Partes Review: Tips from the Trenches. Midwest IP Institute (September 2018)
• The Business of IP Law. Midwest IP Institute (September 2016)

Education

University of Minnesota Law School

Juris Doctor, 2007

University of Minnesota - Morris

Biology B.A., 2003

Representative Matters

• Ecolab v. IBA, 0:22-cv-00479 (D. Minn. 2023): Lead trial counsel achieving Rule 12 dismissal of trade secret matter on behalf of defendant in specialty products case for chemical formulator.
• Bowman v. Dentsply Sirona, 1:22-191 (W.D. Mich., 2022). Lead trial counsel in licensing, joint development and trade secret matter involving orthodontics devices. Primary draftsman of all pleadings, dispositive and non-dispositive motions, discovery, and negotiation of favorable settlement.
• Holylandmarket.com v. Tsitron, 2022-cv-1764 (D. Minn, 2023): Achieved Rule 12 dismissal of copyright and trademark matter on behalf of defendants.
• Nebraska Irrigated Seeds v. Thurston, Inc. (Dodge County Dist. Ct., CI 19-397 (2023). Lead trial counsel in cybersecurity matter responsible for all aspects of client representation, including deposition, dispositive and nondispositive motions, pretrial and trial pleadings, and negotiation of favorable settlement on the eve of trial. Achieved confidential prelitigation settlement on behalf of educational institution and services provider in complex copyright dispute. (Nov., 2022)
• Polygroup Macau Ltd. V. Willis Electric Co. Ltd., 3:15-cv-00552 (W.D.N.C.): Lead trial counsel representing defendant accused of infringement of four different patents claiming mechanical and electrical technology in consumer products. Attained stipulated dismissal of underlying claims premised upon successful inter partes review campaign regarding asserted patents, summarized in part above, and subject to confidential terms.
• Lead trial counsel in patent defense matter of Fulfillium, Inc. v. ReShape Medical LLC (8:18-cv-01265), C.D., Cal., involving patents related to gastric balloon design; matter included project management of all aspects of litigation representation and management, including team leadership, all fact and expert depositions, strategy decision-making, claim construction and trial submissions. IPR2016-01610 (Patent 8,454,186 B21), IPR2016-01612 (Patent 8,454,187 B22 (PTAB October 8, 2020) (Paper 216) upon remand argued and briefed invalidity grounds as directed by the Federal Circuit; achieved preservation of independent and dependent claims even upon consideration of remanded grounds.
• IPR2016-01610, IPR2016-01612 (PTAB Feb. 26, 2018) (Paper 187) (a combined Final Decision covering all claims of two patents): Lead attorney representing the Patent Owner,achieving confirmation that all claims of two of her client’s patents were valid. In doing so, represented one of ten patent owners to ever obtain IPR Final Decisions determining that secondary considerations of non-obviousness negated a finding of patent invalidity, the second party to ever successfully argue that asserted art was not analogous to the claimed invention, and was also victorious on several claim-construction issues. Results achieved through creative and zealous advocacy. Leveraged the first-ever consumer survey submitted in an inter partes review proceeding to tie the success of commercial products to the patented claims, and to show clear consumer preference for the claimed invention. Additional expert testimony amply supported commercial success in the form of increased margin and revenue for the patented products. As a result, a majority of the panel stated “[w]e are faced with a remarkable amount of evidence suggesting non-obviousness of the claimed invention.”
• In IPR2016-01613 (PTAB Feb. 26, 2018) (Paper 118), again achieved victory on client’s behalf. The client voluntarily cancelled independent Claim 1 of the Patent, and in the first post-Aqua Products allowance on a motion to amend, the PTAB granted the Patent Owner’s request to amend that claim. Otherwise, every independent and dependent claim of the patent was valid.
• In IPR2016-01615, IPR2016-01616, and IPR2016-01617 (PTAB Feb. 26, 2018) (Paper 94), IPR201601781, IPR2016-0782 (PTAB May 7, 2018) (Paper 45), successfully defended the validity of an additional two patents. In this case, the PTAB concluded that claim construction precluded a finding of invalidity. In another rarely-held determination, the PTAB concluded that asserted art was not analogous.
• In IPR2017-00331, IPR2017-00334 (PTAB May 7, 2018) (Papers 45-46 respectively), representing a Petitioner, argued that Patent Owner’s patents were invalid because they disclosed only minor variations from asserted prior art. The PTAB agreed, determining that two of Patent Owner’s patents were invalid in their entirety.
• In IPR2017-00309 (PTAB May 7, 2018) (Paper 47) the PTAB was persuaded to invalidate all independent claims based on Larina’s arguments on behalf of Petitioner.
• Lead associate in Honeywell International in Honeywell v. Navico, PTAB-IPR201501334 (USPN 7441189), a dispute related to flight controls and assisted in successfully leveraging a strong Petition for inter partes review into afavorable client settlement. Sole/lead attorney for the first TRO filing in the District of Minnesota under the Federal Defend Trade Secrets Act for a Fortune 500 company in Federal Cartridge Company, et al v. DaVinci Arms, LLC, 0:16-cv-02011 (D. Minn.). Achieved an immediate and favorable settlement for her client and attorney fees totaled under $25,000.
• Drafted early summary judgement pleadings for a subsidiary of a Fortune 500 company accused of design patent infringement that resulted in dismissal of all claims in Z Produx v. Make Up Art Cosmetics, 14-1143 (Fed. Cir.) & 2-13-cv-00734 (CACD). The Federal Circuit affirmed in a summary order.
• Hand Held Prods. (Honeywell) v. Amazon, 11-05-2014 (D. Del.) Lead associate attorney directing associate and staff team in software/user interface patent related to barcode scanning for the plaintiff.

Publications

Foreign Language Capabilities