Dr. Blackburn has substantial experience in USPTO post-grant proceedings, and subsequent appeals to the Federal Circuit, both successfully attacking the validity of patents on behalf of third-party requesters and defending patent validity on behalf of patent owners. She has been involved in ex parte and inter partes reexamination proceedings, as well as the new inter partes review proceedings. She regularly speaks on procedural and substantive aspects of inter partes review proceedings.
Dr. Blackburn works with in-house patent counsel, technical specialists, and inventors to understand inventions and their importance in the company’s overall business strategy. She performs validity and freedom to operate analyses. From these efforts, she counsels clients on patentability, validity, and infringement issues. She also regularly prepares and prosecutes patent applications.
Dr. Blackburn represents companies in patent infringement lawsuits. She has experience with all aspects of patent litigation, including preliminary invalidity and infringement investigations, fact and expert discovery, claim construction and summary judgment briefing and hearings, preparing witnesses for deposition and trial, and actively participating in trial, including examining and cross-examining fact and expert witnesses.
Prior to joining the firm, Dr. Blackburn worked as a patent agent, prosecuting patents in a variety of technical areas. During law school, Dr. Blackburn served on the Board of Directors of the Intellectual Property and Cyberlaw Society.
Represents the University of Connecticut under government contract and prosecutes patent applications for biological and chemical technologies such as protein-based photovoltaic energy systems, anti-malarial vaccines, and chemical compounds for the inhibition of yeast growth.
Served as lead counsel on behalf of Peach State Labs in a patent infringement suit related to the use of urea hydrochloride as a cleaning agent. After a week long jury trial, the jury found that the defendant had willfully infringed Peach State’s patent and awarded damages leaving the defendant with $0.01 per unit profit. The district court later granted Peach State a permanent injunction. The district court further found that Peach State had demonstrated clear and convincing evidence that the infringer engaged in egregious litigation misconduct sufficient to meet the standards for awarding enhanced damages and attorneys’ fees. Peach State Labs, Inc. v. Environmental Manufacturing Solutions, No. 09-cv-395 (M.D. Fla. filed Feb. 27, 2009).
Provides patent procurement and counseling services to Smith & Nephew, an industry leader in the development of advanced medical devices and implants. The company offers technically innovative products in areas such as orthopedic reconstruction and trauma, endoscopy, advanced wound management and biologics. Provide counsel and advice in all aspects of the company's business, including helping shape its overall patent strategy. As part of this, the firm takes an active role in identifying and protecting innovations, as well as evaluating third-party intellectual property rights. Further, the firm provides counseling in connection with the company’s patent licensing and acquisition activities and has represented the company in several patent infringement matters.
Duke University School of Law, J.D. (2007)
North Carolina State University, Ph.D., Organic Chemistry (2004)
Georgetown College, B.S., Engineering Arts (1998)
Georgia Institute of Technology, B.Che.E. (1998)
U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (2003)
U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Georgia (2008)
American Bar Association, Member
American Chemical Society, Member
American Intellectual Property Law Association, Member
Duke, Intellectual Property and Cyberlaw Society, Past Director of Speaker Relations
While we are pleased to have you contact us by telephone, surface mail, electronic mail, or by facsimile transmission, contacting Kilpatrick Townsend & Stockton LLP or any of its attorneys does not create an attorney-client relationship. The formation of an attorney-client relationship requires consideration of multiple factors, including possible conflicts of interest. An attorney-client relationship is formed only when both you and the Firm have agreed to proceed with a defined engagement.
DO NOT CONVEY TO US ANY INFORMATION YOU REGARD AS CONFIDENTIAL UNTIL A FORMAL CLIENT-ATTORNEY RELATIONSHIP HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED.
If you do convey information, you recognize that we may review and disclose the information, and you agree that even if you regard the information as highly confidential and even if it is transmitted in a good faith effort to retain us, such a review does not preclude us from representing another client directly adverse to you, even in a matter where that information could be used against you.