Karen Morris' problem solving and analytical abilities make her an invaluable asset both to the firm’s Intellectual Property and Technology Litigation team, as well as its clients. As a patent attorney admitted to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, Karen focuses her practice on a variety of issues including patent, trademark, and copyright matters. She combines her background and training in biochemistry with her intellectual property experience to assist clients on a variety of complex scientific and technical issues.
Karen has represented a variety of companies with diverse intellectual property portfolios, including generic pharmaceutical companies, nutraceutical companies, and software companies, among others. She is experienced in all phases of patent litigation including initial case assessment, case development, overseeing fact and expert discovery, claim construction briefing and argument, dispositive motions practice, and alternative dispute resolution.
- Lead Associate for generic pharmaceutical company in pending Hatch-Waxman litigation involving guaifenesin.
- Lead Associate for generic pharmaceutical company in pending Hatch-Waxman litigation involving aripiprazole.
- Lead Associate for Noven Pharmaceuticals, Inc. in Hatch-Waxman litigation over LIDODERM® (lidocaine patch 5%) brought by Endo Pharmaceuticals. Achieved favorable settlement after advancing non-infringement position through expert reports and testimony.
- Managed international multi-million page document review taking place in Tokyo, Japan for international pharmaceutical company.
- Achieved favorable settlement after obtaining successful claim construction ruling where alleged infringer's nutraceutical process clearly fell within scope of patent.
- Achieved summary judgment of non-infringement for medical device company whose sales of replacement carbon dioxide absorbers were protected by the doctrines of patent exhaustion and permissive repair.
- Represented university faced with declaratory judgment of non-infringement of its nationally-recognized trademark. Won motion to dismiss due to a lack of jurisdiction, which resulted in the case being transferred and the claims dismissed.