Source: https://www.jw.com/people/leisa-t-peschel/
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 12:23:08+00:00

Document:
Leisa Talbert Peschel is both an intellectual property trial lawyer and counselor. Leisa has considerable experience litigating intellectual property matters, including over fifty patent infringement cases. Her cases typically involve highly complex technical and legal issues. Leisa leverages her scientific background to gain a better understanding of a client’s technology to better position her client throughout a case. She has been involved in cases dealing with a wide array of technologies, including Power-over-Ethernet (PoE), biotechnology research tools, chemical compositions, audio compression technology, display technologies, plastics, pipe thread compounds, blow-out preventers, security systems, computer software methods, and electronics.
In addition to her litigation experience, Leisa maintains an active transactional practice. Leisa counsels clients on how to obtain, enforce, and license intellectual property. She also gives strategic guidance regarding intellectual property transactions, which includes performing due diligence on intellectual property portfolios. Her transactional practice also includes preparing patent opinions of counsel, including freedom-to-operate, noninfringement, and invalidity opinions. Leisa’s scientific background is particularly helpful to clients seeking an opinion of counsel relating to biotechnology, chemical, or oil field services products.
Leisa is also a frequent author and speaker on intellectual property law topics. She has spoken on matters relating to corporate patent policies, patent infringement defenses (including section 101 and 112 defenses), licensing, patent damages, patent reform, concurrent district court litigation and post-grant review proceedings, standing, e-discovery, the intersection of science and the law, and design patent infringement.
Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-Lucent, et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) – On behalf of defendant ALE USA Inc. in a patent infringement case involving Power-over-Ethernet technology, obtained judgment as a matter of law that there was no willful infringement and a jury verdict favorable on damages.
Chrimar Systems, Inc., et al. v. Alcatel-Lucent, et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) – On behalf of defendants in the first patent infringement lawsuit between the parties, obtained a dismissal with prejudice after significantly narrowing the scope of accused products.
Prism Technologies v. Adobe Systems, Inc., et al. (United States District Court for Nebraska) – On behalf of defendant McAfee, Inc. in a patent infringement lawsuit concerning computer network access technology, part of a team that obtained summary judgment of noninfringement, which was later affirmed by the Federal Circuit (541 Fed. Appx. 999).
Media Queue, LLC v. Netflix, Inc. et al. (United States District Court for the Northern District of California) – Representing defendant Blockbuster Inc. along with David Wooten in a patent infringement case involving computer software for maintaining a “queue” of desired movies, the team obtained favorable claim constructions that resulted in summary judgment of noninfringement.
Invitrogen Corporation, et al. v. Evident Technologies, Inc. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) – Obtained a consent judgment and permanent injunction on behalf of plaintiffs against the defendant in a patent infringement case involving quantum dot technology and molecular probes.
Paradox Security Systems, Ltd., et al v. ADT Security Services, Inc. et al. (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas) – Part of a team representing defendant Monitronics International in a patent infringement jury trial concerning security system electronics that obtained judgment as a matter of law of noninfringement at the close of the plaintiff’s case.
Lubrizol Oilfield Chemistry, LLC, et al. v. InTerraChem, LLC, et al. (United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas) – In a case involving trade secrets related to specialty chemicals and on behalf of the plaintiffs, obtained a favorable resolution following a motion for a preliminary injunction.
Negotiated and drafted agreements regarding confidentiality, intellectual property licensing, clinical trials, and assignment of intellectual property rights for nonprofit research, biotechnology, and oilfield services companies.
Conducted product clearance and design around analyses and opinions, including for biotechnology research tools, chemical processes, drilling tools, and real-time video streaming technologies.
Provided patent opinions on noninfringement and invalidity grounds.
Performed due diligence on intellectual property being transferred in mergers and acquisitions occurring in both the biotechnology and oil and gas industries.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.