Mary Prendergast focuses her intellectual property and commercial litigation practice on representing clients in the medical devices, pharmaceuticals, electronics, software, semiconductors, and telecommunications sectors. She has extensive experience overseeing the day-to-day strategy and management of complex litigation from pre-suit investigation through trial and appeal.
Ms. Prendergast is adept at distilling and communicating highly complex technical issues, both in and out of the courtroom. She has argued motions and presented witnesses at trial in jurisdictions across the country, and has obtained favorable outcomes for clients at every stage of litigation. Ms. Prendergast is often tasked with coordinating fact and expert discovery, and has taken and defended depositions of fact witnesses as well as economic and technical experts. She also is a sought-after writer, and she regularly obtains favorable rulings for clients on the papers.
With an active pro bono practice, Ms. Prendergast has evaluated potential cases for the California Innocence Project, represented tenants seeking to remedy dangerous housing conditions, and worked on civil rights matters in coordination with the ACLU, including a lawsuit aimed at preventing the suppression of free speech at border crossings.
Ms. Prendergast received her J.D. from the University of California, Los Angeles, where she was editor-in-chief of the UCLA Journal of International Law & Foreign Affairs and received Outstanding Oral Advocate honors as a member of UCLA’s Moot Court Honors Program. She received her B.F.A. cum laude from the University of Notre Dame.
Ms. Prendergast has worked as a law clerk for the California Attorney General’s Office, and as a legal extern at the Department of Defense General Counsel’s Office for International Affairs.
Smartphone Litigation.Represented a smartphone manufacturer in high-profile patent litigation that has resulted in jury verdicts totaling over $1.1 billion.
Lawrence Livermore National Security LLC et al. v. Alcon Laboratories, Inc. et al. (Central District of California). Represented several Alcon entities in patent litigation regarding femtosecond lasers for eye surgery. Prevailed on summary judgment that the three asserted patents were not infringed by the accused devices.
Certain Portable Electronic Devices and Components Thereof (International Trade Commission, 337-TA-994). Represented respondent BlackBerry in an ITC investigation involving a hierarchical user interface for accessing music tracks on portable media players. Obtained an early initial determination from the ALJ finding the asserted patent invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.
Alcon LenSx v. Neev(Arbitration/Central District of California). Represented Alcon LenSx in a three-day patent infringement and licensing arbitration hearing involving laser-tissue interaction technology, resulting in a complete victory for Alcon LenSx that was confirmed by the district court and affirmed by the Federal Circuit.
Area 55 v. Amazon(Southern District of California). Reached a favorable settlement on behalf of Area 55 in a patent and trade dress infringement case after obtaining favorable claim construction, prevailing on motion to dismiss Amazon’s counterclaims, and defeating Amazon’s summary judgment and Daubert motions.
Nikon Metrology v. Faro Technologies(District of Massachusetts). Represented Nikon Metrology in a two-week jury trial in a patent case involving laser line scanner and articulated arm metrology solutions.
Fractus v. Kyocera(Eastern District of Texas). Reached a favorable settlement on behalf of Kyocera (minutes before opening statements in a jury trial), after Kyocera was accused of infringement by a Spanish internal cell phone antenna developer.
Anvik v. Nikon(Southern District of New York). Defended Nikon against patent infringement claims aimed at lithography machines used in fabrication of most of the large-panel LCD displays in the world, including drafting of summary judgment briefing that resulted in a judgment of invalidity on all asserted patents.
Teva v. Sandoz(Southern District of New York). Represented the manufacturer of a generic version of Copaxone, Teva’s $4 billion multiple sclerosis drug, in a three-week trial under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
Allergan v. Sandoz(Eastern District of Texas). Represented the manufacturer of a generic version of the glaucoma treatment Lumigan 0.01% in a week-long trial under the Hatch-Waxman Act.
©1996-2018 Morrison & Foerster LLP. All rights reserved.