Lauren focuses her practice on technology litigation, primarily patent litigation, and has significant experience in federal district and appellate courts and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”). Lauren also provides strategic and product counseling on complex intellectual property issues and assists clients with internal and external communications surrounding legal issues and technology disputes.
Lauren founded and leads Bunsow De Mory LLP’s PTAB practice, and has served as lead trial counsel on over thirty Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceedings, on behalf of both Petitioners and Patent Owners. Lauren’s PTAB experience began with the very first Covered Business Method (“CBM”) proceeding filed in September 2012 under the America Invents Act. Having often represented parties before the PTAB as well as in the related litigation matters, Lauren appreciates the necessity of coordinating strategy between PTAB proceedings and related litigations and how to leverage each forum’s strengths to best serve her clients.
Lauren also has considerable trial and appellate experience, including multiple federal district court jury and bench trials, Federal Circuit appeals, and petitions for writ of certiorari to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Lauren is experienced in a broad array of technologies. In addition to her foundation in molecular, cellular, and developmental biology and biochemistry, Lauren’s practice has included technologies such as medical and diagnostic devices, DNA amplification, digital content protection and DRM, sale and transmission of digital content, time-scale modification of digital content, video-on-demand, embedded interactive web content, targeted content delivery, proximity-based networking, and enterprise resource planning (ERP) software, customer relationship management (CRM) software, and automated negotiations.
Lauren has been repeatedly recognized as a Super Lawyers Rising Star.
While in law school, Lauren participated in clinical programs and represented criminal defendants from arraignment through trial. She is a co-recipient of the 2006 Irving Oberman Memorial Award in Law and Social Change for her editorial work on The Great Unobtainable Writ: Indigent Pro Se Litigation After the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, a law review article authored by an inmate and published by the Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review.
Awards & Recognition
- Super Lawyers Rising Star for Northern California (2010, 2013-2020)
- PTAB Bar Association, Vice Chair of Women’s Committee
- Harvard Law School, J.D. 2007; Irving Oberman Memorial Award in Law and Social Change (2006); Vice President, Harvard Defenders; Executive Editor, Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review
- University of Colorado, Boulder, B.A. 2004, double major in Molecular, Cellular, and Developmental Biology and Anthropology; minor in Biochemistry; summa cum laude; Phi Beta Kappa
Presentations & Publications
- Co-author, “SCOTUS declines to review appeal of first-ever CBM review decision,” Intellectual Property Magazine (September 2016)
- “IP Year in Review: Patents,” Presented to Santa Clara County Bar Association (February 2016)
- Co-author, “Seven Tips For Securing A Disclaimer Ruling in Markman Proceedings,” Chapter, Inside The Minds: Developing A Patent Strategy (Aspatore Books) (2011)
- Co-Author, “How Good Patent Claims Are Killed By Bad Specifications and Prosecutions—A Sharpshooter’s Guide For Patent Prosecutors And Litigators,” Presented to Association of Corporate Counsel (ACC), Bay Area Chapter (February 2011)
- Co-author, “IP Law Report: The increasing importance of re-examinations,” The National Law Journal (August 2010)
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Texas
- U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
- U.S. District Court, Central District of California
Inter Partes Review Proceedings (Patent Trial and Appeal Board). Representing multiple inventor patent owners in various Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceedings, including obtaining denials of institution on certain patents and proceeding through PTAB trials for others.
Inter Partes Review Proceedings (Patent Trial and Appeal Board). Represented biotechnology company as Petitioner in strategic Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) proceedings, promoting favorable outcomes in related litigation matters.
Carolina Coupon Clearing, Inc. (“Inmar”) v. Cardinal Health. Represented Inmar in a trade secret misappropriation, breach of contract, fraud, and unfair competition case in the Middle District of North Carolina. Settled on favorable terms.
Surgical Irrigation Technologies v. Stryker. Represented Stryker in a patent infringement action regarding surgical irrigation devices. Case dismissed by plaintiff.
Versata Software v. SAP. Represented SAP in a nearly decade-long dispute with Versata, originally involving five Versata patents regarding computer-based configuration, pricing, and order management software. Three patents were dismissed before trial, including based on dispositive claim construction issues, and following a 2009 jury trial, the court determined that a fourth patent did not infringe as a matter of law. In the nation’s first Covered Business Method proceeding, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board found the fifth patent invalid; that determination was upheld on appeal.
Patent Litigations and Related Covered Business Method Proceedings (Patent Trial and Appeal Board). Defended a major consumer electronics company in multiple patent infringement actions and Covered Business Method (“CBM”) review proceedings involving electronic sale and transmission of music and video, data storage and access systems, and digital rights management. The PTAB instituted CBM review of numerous challenged claims, each of which were ultimately held not patentable based on prior art or Section 101 grounds.
Eolas v. Adobe et al. Represented a prominent Mountain View-based technology company defendant to secure total victory in a case brought by Eolas Technologies Inc. on two patents that it contended cover all web sites containing interactive content. After a four-day invalidity trial involving multiple defendants, an Eastern District of Texas jury returned a verdict that all asserted claims of both patents were invalid.
Applied Medical v. Ethicon Endo-Surgery. Represented Applied to redress unfair competition and false advertising in medical device market.
Sky Technologies v. SAP. Defended SAP in a patent infringement action regarding computer-based negotiations.