Linda D. Mettes

Patent, Trademark, and Copyright Litigation

person photo

Linda Mettes specializes in intellectual property litigation.  With nearly 25 years of experience, Linda has litigated patent, trademark, and copyright cases nationwide, including Delaware, California, Texas, Illinois, Michigan, Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Utah, Florida, Ohio, Indiana, and the Federal Circuit, Ninth Circuit and Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals.

Linda has extensive experience in managing litigation from pre-suit investigation through trial/appeal, including fact discovery, expert discovery, and mock jury research.  Linda has deposed over 100 witnesses, including inventors, experts, and company officers. Linda has briefed and/or argued over 100 motions and appeals, including summary judgment, Daubert, Markman, and sanctions motions.

Linda is a registered patent attorney whose technical ability cuts through various technology.  She has led cases in a wide array of technology such as computer hardware, control systems and software, silicon wafer and semi-conductor technology, consumer products and electronics, cell phones, televisions, medical and neurosurgical devices, vaccines, birth control pills and other pharmaceuticals, ophthalmic surgical equipment, stents, mass spectrometry, medical imaging, metal casting, automotive components,  financial products, Internet advertising, and polyethylene foam.

While adept at communicating mechanical, electrical, chemical and pharmaceutical technologies to a court or jury, Linda also has a depth of experience on the damages side, for both plaintiffs and defendants. Linda has successfully precluded damage claims on behalf of defendants and defended the client’s ability to advance significant damage claims on behalf of plaintiffs.

Linda has also worked on many IPRs (Inter Partes Review), as well as prosecuted patents, particularly in reexamination and continuation practice for patents asserted or about to be asserted in litigation.  Linda has also provided legal opinions, conducted due diligence and negotiated and drafted licensing agreements.

As a devoted mentor to many throughout her career, Linda is an ardent proponent of diversity and inclusion. She teaches patent litigation as an adjunct professor at Michigan State University and is an active member of the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity.  Linda has also been integral in STEM for Girls scholarships and programming in association with the American Heart Association. Linda was honored as a 2018 Women in the Law by Michigan Lawyers Weekly in recognition of her work this arena.

Prior to joining Brooks Kushman, Linda was a partner at another Detroit-area law firm and Kenyon & Kenyon in New York City.  She has also worked as a mechanical engineer for an automotive OEM in a rotational program involving product design, testing, manufacturing and advance R&D.

Representative Matters

JTEKT Corp. v. GKN Auto. Ltd. (Federal Circuit): Briefed and argued successful dismissal of appeal of IPR decision for lack of standing; counsel of record in opposition to JTEKT petition for certiorari. Case No. 898 F.3d 1217

Automotive Body Parts Assoc. v. Ford Global Technologies, LLC (Summary Judgment – E.D. Michigan): Obtained summary judgment for Ford Global on plaintiff’s declaratory judgment claims concerning Ford Global’s design patents. Case No. 2:15-cv-10137

In re Certain Hybrid Electric Vehicles (ITC):  Trial counsel for Ford Motor Company in multi-patent investigation directed to hybrid electric vehicles. Settlement after trial. Case No. 337-TA-1042

New World v. Ford Global Technologies (N.D. Texas): Led successful motion for Rule 11 sanctions and motions to dismiss Ford Global for lack of personal jurisdiction in Texas and for res judicata (with dismissals affirmed on appeal). Case No. 3:16-cv-01112

Mercado v. Indio Products (Summary Judgment – C.D. California):  Led motion to dismiss copyright claim and successful motion for summary judgment on trade dress claims. Case No. 2:13-cv-01027

Signal IP, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company: Led successful motion to transfer Ford from CA to EDMI and through discovery and claim construction until settlement. Case No. 5:14-cv-13729

Easton Technical Products v. Eastman Outdoors (Settlement – District of Utah 2015): Lead counsel in contract dispute related to allegations of trademark infringement. Case No. 2:15-cv-00126

Indio Products, Inc. v. Camao, Inc. (Settlement – C.D. California): Lead counsel on copyright and infringement case. Case No. 16-cv -07688

RFA Brands, LLC v. Beauvais (Summary Judgment – E.D. Michigan): Led successful motion for summary judgment of liability and damages related to consumer products. Case No. 2:13-cv-14615

MEMC Elec. Materials, Inc. v. Mitsubishi Materials Silicon Corp. (N.D. California and Federal Circuit):  Authored appeal to obtain affirmance of Daubert exclusion of technical expert and non-infringement ruling on silicon wafer technology. Case No. 4:05-cv-02133

Parental Guide of Texas, Inc. v.  Sony Corp., et al. (Settlement – E.D. Texas): Led pre-trial filings and motions leading to settlement for client regarding television technology.

Vulcan Engineering Co. v. FATA Aluminium, Inc. (Federal Circuit):  Led strategy through discovery and Markman to obtain verdict against infringer; authored appeal brief to obtain affirmance by CAFC with additional price erosion damages awarded. Case No. 278 F.3d 1366

Polytorx, LLC v. Sambo Machine Co., Dong Joo Kim, Ji Yong Kim, et al. (Michigan – Washtenaw Circuit Court ): Briefed and argued successful dismissal motion and appeal for trade secret case on behalf of Korean company and two employees. Case No. 2013-495-CZ

Island Intellectual Property LLC v. Deutsche Bank AG (Settlement – S.D. New York): Represented defendant through a successful settlement after defense of damages expert. 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21742

Dow Chem. Co. v. Astro-Valcour, Inc. (Federal Circuit): Implemented a strategy to place plaintiff in a catch-22 with a successful claim construction motion to ensure a loss either on infringement or validity that was followed up with successful summary judgment motion for invalidity; authored appeal brief to obtain affirmance by CAFC. Case No.  267 F.3d 1334

Aptargroup, Inc. v. Summit Packaging Systems (N.D. Illinois and Federal Circuit): Obtained a denial of lost profits at trial and sanctions prior to trial with affirmance by CAFC. Case No. 1:94-cv-02304

Ford Global Techs v. New World Int’l (Summary Judgment – N.D. Texas): Led successful defense against motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction and led discovery and summary judgment briefing on New World invalidity defenses, ultimately resulting in summary judgment on defenses and a jury verdict of willful infringement. Case No. 3:17-cv-03201

St. Clair Intellectual Prop. Consultants v. Acer, Inc. (Summary Judgment – D. Delaware): Authored successful Markman claim construction briefing and summary judgment briefing and successfully defended Daubert challenge to damages and technical experts. Case No. 1:09-cv-00704, Inc. v. 1-800 Contacts, Inc. (Trademark Trial and Appeal Board): Determined an approach to obtain cancellation of mark and implemented it through a strategic deposition followed up by a successful motion for cancellation, later affirmed by Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

1-800 Contacts, Inc. v., Inc. (D. Utah):  Obtained repeated sanctions for discovery obstruction. Case No. 2:07-cv-00591

Evans Med. v. American Cyanamid Co. (Summary Judgment – S.D. New York): Authored brief resulting in summary judgment of non-infringement for defendant, affirmed by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Case No. 11 F. Supp. 2d 338

Aesculap AG & Co. KG v. Walter Lorenz Surgical, Inc. (N.D. California): Prosecuted continuation applications, conducted discovery and authored successful claim construction ruling wholly in favor of plaintiff. Case No. 3:01-cv-00778

Johnson & Johnson v. American Home Products Corp. (Settlement – E.D. Pennsylvania): After vigorous discovery and thorough mock research, wrote successful in limine and Daubert motions excluding an expert’s billion-dollar damages opinion in pre-trial phase, leading to favorable settlement. Case No. 2:94-cv-01388

Henkel Corp v. Sika Corp. (Settlement – E.D. Michigan): Developed non-infringement theory for defendant and evidence leading to successful settlement.

Advanced Medical Optics Inc. v. Alcon Manufacturing (Settlement – D. Delaware): Taking over matter after an adverse jury verdict, developed and advanced new evidence of invalidity leading to favorable settlement. Case No. 1:03-cv-01095

Alcon Manufacturing Ltd v. Advanced Medical Optics Inc. (Settlement – N.D. Texas): Favorable settlement for defendant. Case No. 4:05-cv-00496

DuPont Pharmaceutical Co. v. Nycomed Amersham Imaging (Settlement – D. Delaware): Favorable settlement after claim construction hearing.

Cephalon Inc. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA Inc., et al. (D. New Jersey): Favorable settlement for defendant.

IBM v. Conner Peripherals (ND. California): 20 patent case directed to computer hard drives, which the court referred to as “the largest patent litigation in history” at the time.

Organizations and Affiliations

National Asian Pacific American Bar Association, Women’s Leadership Network

Leadership Council on Legal Diversity

American Intellectual Property Law Association

Intellectual Property Owner’s Association, Women in IP Committee

State Bar of Michigan

State Bar of New York

United States Patent and Trademark Office Registered Attorney

Women’s Bar Association of Oakland County


“Women in Law”, Michigan Lawyers Weekly, 2018




    Media Coverage


    Co-Presenter, “Managing High-Stakes IP Litigation,” BK Webinar, September 2019

    Speaker, “Evolving Procedural Challenges Associated With AIA,”Managing Intellectual Property PTAB Forum, May 2018


    J.D., Northwestern University School of Law, cum laude

    B.S., General Engineering, University of Illinois