Ms. Lydigsen practices intellectual property litigation and prosecution, with a focus on biotech, pharmaceuticals and medical devices. Prior to joining Brinks, she worked as a law clerk to the Honorable Alvin A. Schall at the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the Honorable Ruben Castillo at the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Alumni Association Prize for the highest overall G.P.A. in graduating class, Washington University School of Law

Order of the Coif, Washington University School of Law

Associate Editor, Washington University Law Quarterly

Giles Rich Moot Court Team, Midwest Regional Winner 2004

Samuel M. Breckinridge Practice Court Prize for excellence in moot court

Breckinridge Book Award for outstanding performance in Legal Research and Writing

CALI Excellence Awards: Legal Research and Writing, Patent Law, Patent Drafting, Bankruptcy, Constitutional Law, Civil Procedure, and Torts

Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz Inc., 07-1400 (Fed. Cir. May 18, 2009) (en banc). Successfully represented Sandoz Inc. in an appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit dealing with claim construction and the proper interpretation of product-by-process claims. In a landmark decision, the Federal Circuit affirmed the district court's claim construction, and the en banc Court resolved the long-standing conflict on the interpretation of product-by-process claims between its prior decisions in Atlantic Thermoplastics and Scripps Clinic. Following Supreme Court precedent, the Court upheld the rule in Atlantic Thermoplastics that product-by-process claims are limited by their process steps.

Boss v. Cabilly, No. 2009-1264 (Fed. Cir. 2009) (Interference No. 105,531). Successfully represented Genentech in an appeal of the decision by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences that Genentech's "Cabilly" patent application (No. 08/422,187) has priority over UCB Pharma's "Boss" patent application (No. 08/450,727) covering recombinant DNA techniques for manufacturing antibodies. The technology is now a foundation for many top-selling cancer-treatment drugs such as Avastin®, Herceptin® and Rituxan®.

Abbott Labs. v. Sandoz Inc., 486 F. Supp. 2d 767 (N.D. Ill. 2007). Successfully defended Sandoz Inc. against request for temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction by Abbott and Astellas before Judge Wayne R. Andersen over patents relating to a polymorph of crystalline cefdinir, an antibiotic also sold as Omnicef^®.

"QUI-TAM-OSAURUS, the Statutory Dinosaur: Evolution or Extinction for the Qui Tam Patent False Marking Statute?" published in ENGAGE - The Journal of the Federalist Society Practice Groups, Vol. 10, Issue 3 (Oct. 2009).

"Fairness and Justice" after Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency: Subsequent Regulatory Takings Decisions Under the "Parcel as a Whole" Framework, 82 Wash U. L.Q. 1513 (2004).

"The New Law Under In re Bilski: Are Your Process Patents Now Invalid?," Utah Technology Council (UTC) Industry Luncheon, Salt Lake City, Utah, December 3, 2008