loader
Page is loading...
OVERVIEW

Felicia J. Boyd
Partner

Minneapolis

225 South Sixth Street
Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4662

P 612-367-8729

F 612-333-6798

OVERVIEW

Felicia J. Boyd
Partner

Minneapolis

225 South Sixth Street
Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4662

P 612-367-8729

F 612-333-6798

Both in and out of court, Felicia Boyd has extensive experience in complex IP disputes involving patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade dress. A commonsense counselor who is practical, balanced and direct, Felicia distills even the most complex challenges and technologies down to critical points and action items, regardless of her role as an advocate, arbitrator or mediator.

OVERVIEW

Felicia J. Boyd Partner

Minneapolis

225 South Sixth Street
Suite 2800
Minneapolis, MN 55402-4662

P : 612-367-8729

Both in and out of court, Felicia Boyd has extensive experience in complex IP disputes involving patents, copyrights, trademarks and trade dress. A commonsense counselor who is practical, balanced and direct, Felicia distills even the most complex challenges and technologies down to critical points and action items, regardless of her role as an advocate, arbitrator or mediator.

A past co-chair of the firm’s Intellectual Property Department, Felicia’s victories as a litigator have included preliminary injunction motions, summary judgment motions, favorable settlements and jury verdicts at trial. A registered patent attorney, Felicia has represented clients in contested proceedings before various branches of the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO).

Felicia has played a leading role in scores of IP matters, large and small, for multiple clients over decades of practice. Her experience spans a diverse array of industries, including financial and investment services, medical devices, software, music, pharmaceuticals and manufactured goods. Felicia offers clients significant skill in complex case management and the coordination of global discovery efforts. She effectively designs and implements litigation strategy consistent with client objectives. In addition, Felicia advises on Markman strategy, briefing and argument, and the selection and development of all experts.

Notably, Felicia also serves as an arbitrator and mediator. She is a fellow of the CIArb (Chartered Institute of Arbitrators), and is a member of LCIA (The London Court of International Arbitration), ArbitralWomen and the complex commercial litigation panel of the American Arbitration Association. Serving as an arbitrator and mediator is an art that requires experience not only in the law, but also hard-earned people skills and the capacity to see beyond adversity. Felicia is appreciated not only for her intellectual prowess, but also for her objectivity, credibility, tact, perseverance, patience, leadership and ability to create synergy among even the most disparate parties.

Professional and Community Involvement

Member, International Bar Association Forum for Barristers and Advocates Committee; Intellectual Property and Entertainment Law Committee; North American Regional Forum Committee.

Member, International Trademark Association (INTA) Panel of Trademark Mediators

Chair, INTA Europe, Africa and Middle East Subcommittee of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Committee

Fellow, Litigation Counsel of America, 2016

Honors

The Best Lawyers in America, intellectual property, 2009-2019

Who’s Who Legal

Managing IP’s Top 250 Women in IP nationwide, 2016

Chambers USA, IP litigation, 2013-2018

World Trademark Review 1000, 2013, 2017 and 2019

Minnesota Lawyer, Attorneys of the Year, 2013

Minnesota Monthly, Minnesota's Best Lawyers, 2013

Minnesota Super Lawyers, intellectual property and intellectual Property Litigation, 2014-2018

Minnesota Super Lawyers, Top 50 Women, 2016

Benchmark Litigation, Litigation Star, 2015 and 2016

World Intellectual Property Review, IP Leader, 2017

EXPERIENCE
  • Barnes & Thornburg attorneys represented Wells Fargo in a case before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The court found the district court did not follow Ninth Circuit law on Lanham Act preliminary injunctions and sent it back to the lower court with instructions to enter an order consistent with the appellate court's decision. The Ninth Circuit also criticized the judge for failing to rule appropriately on the false advertising and false affiliation claims.
INSIGHTS & EVENTS
Trending Connect
We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By clicking any link on this page you are giving your consent for us to use cookies.