Linda E.B. Hansen

Retired Partner


Linda E. B. Hansen was a trial lawyer and registered patent attorney with Foley & Lardner LLP. She focused her practice on disputes involving patents, trademarks, trade secrets, copyrights and unfair competition. She was a partner in the Intellectual Property Litigation, Mechanical & Electromechanical Technologies and Patent Office Trials Practices with Foley & Lardner LLP. She was also a member of the Energy Industry Team and the Trade Secret/Noncompete Specialty Practice.

Ms. Hansen has more than 30 years of experience in complex litigation. She has tried dozens of cases, and has been lead counsel in class actions and multi-party litigation. She successfully defended one of two defendants in a lawsuit involving hundreds of thousands of claimants and preliminary damage estimates exceeding several billion dollars. Her work has involved various industries, including consumer products, telecommunications, software, electronic components, sporting goods, water treatment, construction materials, automotive, and medical equipment. Ms. Hansen also counseled clients concerning their patent rights, assists clients in license negotiations and drafts patent opinions.


In recognition of her experience, she has been Peer Review Rated as AV® Preeminent™, the highest performance rating in Martindale-Hubbell's peer review rating system.

Thought Leadership

Ms. Hansen has lectured on a variety of subjects in the fields of intellectual property law and trail practice, and she authored a chapter on patent law in a textbook related to water treatment. She served as adjunct faculty at Marquette University Law School, and as a teaching assistant in the Bioethics Department at the Medical College of Wisconsin.


In 1977, Ms. Hansen graduated, cum laude, from the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, with a degree in physics and mathematics. She worked as an engineer before graduating from the University of Wisconsin Law School in 1981.


She is licensed to practice in Wisconsin and before the U.S. Supreme Court, the U.S. Courts of Appeal for the Federal Circuit and Seventh Circuit, and Federal District Courts for the Eastern and Western Districts of Wisconsin, the Northern District of Illinois, and the District of Nebraska. She is also licensed to practice before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office.

Representative Matters

Showing of
On August 19, 2015, Foley obtained a win for our client Emerson Electric Co. in an appellate case brought by plaintiff ABT Systems, LLC. Linda Hansen, Jeff Costakos and Kadie Jelenchick tried the original case to a jury in 2013. The plaintiff appealed the damages award from that case and our client appealed on patent validity grounds. The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit agreed with Emerson, finding that the patent was indeed invalid, and that the plaintiff is no longer entitled to the damages award.
In a patent infringement litigation that Foley handled on behalf of client Asahi Glass Co., Ltd., the largest glass manufacturer in the world, the judge issued a decision upholding the jury verdict by denying all of the defendant's post trial motions in Asahi Glass Co., Ltd. et al. v. Guardian Industries, Inc. In fact, the judge also sanctioned the patent infringer for its inequitable conduct allegations, awarding money sanctions. Our client prevailed on every issue. Final judgment was also entered, with the action for filing with the Court. A brief summary of Judge Robinson's decision: On alleged “improper inventorship,” the judge held that there was sufficient evidence that each of the inventors had some involvement in the invention. On "obviousness," the judge criticized Guardian's expert witness as “cursory,” did not provide a sufficient motivation to try variations of prior art, and did not illuminate his rationale to any degree. On the motion for a new trial, the jury instructions were not in error, and if they were, such error would have been harmless. On “inequitable conduct,” the materiality and intent requirements are separate and the court can not infer intent where it is not proven, with saying that “Defendant’s inequitable conduct argument is based primarily on attorney argument without relevant references in the trial record.” Finally, the judge wrote that, "Insofar as the court agrees with plaintiffs that these theories [regarding amendment of counterclaims] were procedurally barred, and given that defendant’s inequitable conduct theory with respect to Ando and Makino [is] devoid of merit, the court will order defendant to pay plaintiffs’ reasonable costs associated with preparation of their responsive brief.”


Design Patents and Copyrights for Designs on Useful Articles
19 September 2016
Dashboard Insights
Design Patents and Copyrights for Designs on Useful Articles
02 September 2016
IP Litigation Current
The Brexit and Patent Law: What You Need to Know
23 August 2016
Manufacturing Industry Advisor
The New AIA Rules May Help Patent Owners Avoid Trial
05 April 2016
Legal News: Intellectual Property
Hansen Quoted on Emerson Electric Co. Appeal
11 September 2015
Inside Counsel
Foley Wins Appeal for Emerson Electric Co.
20 August 2015