Krista Carter focuses on patent litigation, due diligence, and strategic counseling for innovative biotechnology, pharmaceutical, and technology companies. She also has experience in trade secrets, licensing, unfair competition litigation, and proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
Prior to her legal career, Ms. Carter served in the US Air Force.
- AAT Bioquest, as lead trial counsel, in competitor patent infringement litigation involving a novel fluo calcium ion indicator. After prevailing on all liability issues during summary judgment and securing a permanent injunction, AAT Bioquest was awarded trebled lost profits. AAT Bioquest, Inc. v. Texas Fluorescence Labs., Inc.
- Miotox, as trial counsel, to enforce a License Agreement related to the use of Botox® for migraine headaches and defending patent counterclaims raised by Allergan. Miotox LLC v. Allergan, Inc.
- Callidus in enforcing its patents and asserting business tort and breach of contract claims. The case settled in mediation on terms favorable to Callidus. Callidus Software v. Xactly Corp.
- Roche in conducting due diligence projects in the context of freedom-to-operate analyses. Roche Molecular Systems, Inc.
- Optovue in defending a patent infringement action relating to an ophthalmic imaging technique (optical coherence tomography) brought by a competitor against its core product lines. The case settled on terms favorable to Optovue. Carl Zeiss Meditec Inc. and the University of Miami v. Optovue, Inc.
- Amgen, as trial counsel in a pending patent infringement case involving granulocyte colony stimulating factor. The case settled on terms favorable to Amgen. Amgen Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals Ltd.
- Immunex/Amgen as appellate counsel in a Section 146 appeal of an interference proceeding involving TRAIL receptors. The district court dismissed the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the Federal Circuit appeal was dismissed in Immunex/Amgen's favor. Human Genome Sciences v. Immunex Corp.
- Amgen in enforcing its US erythropoietin (EPO) patents against Roche first through an exclusion proceeding before the ITC and then in a patent litigation action before a jury in the District Court of Massachusetts. After a five-week jury and bench trial, the jury returned a verdict in Amgen's favor on both infringement and validity for each of the asserted patent-in-suit and the court entered final judgment and a permanent injunction in Amgen's favor. Amgen Inc. v. Hoffman La-Roche Ltd.
- SAP in a patent infringement suit and reexamination proceedings involving electronic sourcing systems and related methods. The patent suit was tried in a four-week jury trial. ePlus v. SAP.
- Amgen, as appellate counsel, in a patent infringement suit enforcing Amgen's EPO patents. Amgen Inc. v. Hoechst Marion Roussel (Aventis) and Transkaryotic Therapies.
- JD, Santa Clara University School of Law, 2002
- BA, University of Nebraska, 1998
- US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
- US District Court, Northern District of California
- President and Chair of the Sponsorship Committee, Women's Intellectual Property Lawyer's Association
- Member, American Intellectual Property Law Association Biotech Subcommittee