ILNews

Faegre Baker Daniels to open office in Silicon Valley

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Faegre Baker Daniels LLP is heading to California to open an office in Silicon Valley.

Initially the law firm will focus on providing intellectual property services including patent, trade secret, copyright and trademark litigation as well as IP transactions. Over time, it plans to expand the offerings, possibly to food and agriculture litigation, immigration and privacy.

Faegre Baker Daniels has worked with clients based in California for several years, according to the firm’s managing partner Andrew Humphrey.

The office will be located in Palo Alto and is expected to open July 1. Two intellectual property partners, Calvin Litsey and David Gross, will relocate from the firm’s Minneapolis office.

Also, Faegre’s senior vice president Mary Bono, who formerly represented California’s 45th district, will lead the firm’s increased focus on information technology.

“The strategy of seeding this office with existing firm partners was very important,” Litsey stated in a press release. “Faegre Baker Daniels’ culture and client focus are key differentiators for us, and we didn’t want to lose those aspects of the firm’s identity in this expansion.”

Faegre has offices throughout the U.S., including four in Indiana, as well as locations in China and London.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT