U.S. District Court, Central District of California
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of California
U.S. District Court, Northern District of California
U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit
Registered to practice before U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
Audrey is a shareholder in the firm’s Intellectual Property and Litigation groups. She is a litigator and a registered patent attorney.
Audrey has over 30 years of experience as a business litigator. She has concentrated in intellectual property litigation, including patent, trademark, trade dress, copyright, and trade secret matters. She has represented both plaintiffs and defendants in a variety of courts, including the E.D. California, N.D. California, C.D. California, N.D. Illinois, and District of Massachusetts. Audrey has also represented clients in proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board under the America Invents Act and the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board.
Audrey also has extensive experience litigating and advising clients in the areas of antitrust (Sherman Act, Robinson-Patman Act, Cartwright Act) and unfair competition (Lanham Act, Unfair Competition Law, Unfair Practices Act) in both federal and state courts. She has handled cases involving monopolization, price discrimination, tying, price fixing, below-cost pricing, secret rebates, and locality price discrimination.
Audrey’s clients have included firms that produce chemicals, medical devices, health and nutraceutical products, software, insurance products, and continuing education products.
Audrey advises clients on all issues of intellectual property law, including ownership, infringement, invalidity, and patentability. She has also written and obtained US and foreign patents for chemical compositions, biologically active compounds, methods of detecting disease at the cellular and molecular levels, methods of screening for cancer cells, medical devices, biotechnology, computer software, business methods, and mechanical devices.
Before joining Weintraub Tobin in 1990, Audrey practiced for four years in Los Angeles, focusing on litigation involving business and entertainment. In 1989, in a high-profile paternity case in Los Angeles, Audrey obtained the first court order, in any California criminal or civil case, admitting evidence of DNA “fingerprinting.”
Audrey’s undergraduate and graduate degrees focused on cell and developmental biology and included extensive coursework in biochemistry and genetics. During and after graduate school, Audrey worked in the area of recombinant DNA technology.
J.D., University of California, Davis, 1986
M.S., Oregon State University, 1982
B.A., summa cum laude, Oregon State University, 1978
More Patent Invalidated as Abstract IdeasDivided Infringement – Expanding Patent Infringement LiabilityCOVERED BUSINESS METHODS PATENTS — NOT SO BROAD!Holiday Horror Series: Part 4 – HO, HO, HO! AND FA-LA-LA-LA-LA! MORE CHRISTMAS PATENTSSupreme Court May Cut Back Laches in Patent Infringement CasesWeintraub Tobin’s L&E and IP Blogs recognized as “Top 100 Legal Blogs” By Feedspot Blog ReaderAnimation Software Patent Survives Alice ScrutinyHow BREXIT Will Affect Intellectual PropertyNO ICE, PLEASE!INDUCED INFRINGEMENT BECOMES MORE DIFFICULT TO DEFENDFEDERAL CIRCUIT APPLIES BROADENED TEST FOR DIVIDED INFRINGEMENTPre-Issuance Damages for Patent Infringement – A Very Rare RemedyFederal Circuit Limits Attorneys’ Fees in Exceptional CasesDon’t Get On the Wrong Side of Taylor Swift in a Copyright Case!When Copying is Not Copyright InfringementWhy Business Methods Are Difficult to PatentPatent Owners Beware: Don’t Sleep on Your Rights!Divided Infringement: A Stronger Sword for PlaintiffsFederal Circuit Continues to Nix Financial PatentsEverything Old is New Again: Post-Expiration Patent Royalties are a Bad Idea!Just Because You Think It’s Invalid Doesn’t Mean You Don’t Infringe!Supreme Court Hits Home Run for 401(K) Plan BeneficiariesEnablement is Key – Especially in Biotech PatentsSupreme Court: Patent Claim Construction – Two Standards of ReviewFederal Circuit Chips Away at Patentable Subject MatterHo, Ho, Ho! And Fa-La-La-La-La! More Christmas PatentsAttorneys’ Fees for Patent Infringement – Easier to Obtain!Zombies Have IP TooPatents Must Provide Clear Notice of Their ScopeNo Inducing Patent Infringement Unless There is Direct InfringementBusiness Method Patents: Murkier WaterBest of Luck to California Chrome!Challenging Business Method PatentsPatent Myths Corrected – Part OnePatent Myths Corrected – Part TwoChallenging Business Method PatentsPatent Owners have Burden of Proof in Declaratory Judgment ActionsPatent Infringement: Attorneys’ Fees A Little Easier to Get(Natural) Genes are not PatentableSupreme Court Hears Oral Argument in Key Patent CasePatent Enablement Requires More Than a GuessSection 271(f) Does Not Apply to Method PatentsNew Test for Business Methods PatentsWhat is a Patentable Business Method? Federal Circuit to DecideLack of Enablement – A Stronger Tool for InvalidityFederal Circuit Applies Supreme Court’s New Test for Declaratory Judgment JurisdictionThe Federal Circuit Finds Mental Process UnpatentableNew U.S. Patent and Trademark Office RulesHow To Protect Your Clients’ IP
State Bar of California, Anti-Trust and Unfair Competition, Intellectual Property Law and Litigation Sections
Sacramento County Bar Association, Intellectual Property Law Section
Sacramento Magazine’s Top Lawyers List, 2015 – Antitrust
Sacramento Magazine’s Top Lawyers List, 2015-2017- Intellectual Property, Intellectual Property Litigation
Sacramento Magazine’s Top Lawyers List, 2017- Litigation-Patents
Sacramento Business Journal’s Best of the Bar, 2014 & 2016
Northern California Super Lawyer, 2004, 2007-2017