A formidable commercial litigator with extensive trial experience, Lisa S. Glasser serves in a leadership role as vice chair of the Litigation practice group and as a member of the Executive Committee.

Lisa represents plaintiffs and defendants in intellectual property disputes involving patent infringement, trade secrets, trademarks and other Lanham Act issues, business torts and licensing. She is well-versed in a wide range of high technology and biotech matters, from litigation involving semiconductors and consumer electronics to medical devices and genetic testing. Lisa also has a strong grasp of the technological issues faced by her clients and distills complex technical details into legal arguments that are persuasive to juries and judges.

Lisa represents clients at all stages of litigation, from pre-litigation counseling through trial and appeal. She has represented clients in jury trials in state and federal court, the Delaware Court of Chancery and at the U.S. International Trade Commission as well as in arbitrations.

Honors & Awards

  • Selected for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America (2021-2023)
  • Recognized as one of the “Top IP Lawyers” in California by the Daily Journal (2022)
  • Named an “IP Star” by Managing Intellectual Property (2021-2022)
  • Named among the “Top Women Lawyers in California” by the Daily Journal (2017, 2020, 2021)
  • Recognized as a “Winning Litigator” by The National Law Journal (2020)
  • Selected as “Trials MVP” by Law360 (2020)
  • Named to the Southern California Super Lawyers list (2014-2023)
  • Named to Benchmark Litigation’s “Under 40 Hot List” (2016-2019)
  • Honored as one of the “Women Leaders in Tech Law” by The Recorder (2015, 2017)
  • Recognized as a “Rising Star” and listed as one of nine intellectual property attorneys under 40 in the country to watch by Law360 (2015)
  • Honored by the Daily Journal as part of the Irell & Manella LLP trial team that achieved a “Top Defense Verdict of 2010”; the verdict was issued in connection with a six-week jury trial involving complex patent infringement warranty and indemnity issues

Publications

  • "Ethically Speaking: A Decade After Seagate, Uncertainty Over the Scope of Privilege Waiver in IP Cases Remains," Orange County Lawyer (October 2018)
  • "Recent Patent Decisions Illustrate Variation in Application of the Common Interest Privilege," The Computer & Internet Lawyer (January 2016)
  • "Don't Win a Trademark Battle, Only to Lose the War," The Recorder (June 24, 2015)
  • "Ethically Speaking: Recent Patent Decisions Illustrate Variation In Application Of The Common Interest Privilege," 57 Orange County Lawyer (2015)
  • "Ethically Speaking: Seahaus v. Superior Court: An Uncommon Fact Pattern Highlights Complexities of the Common Interest Privilege in California," 56 Orange County Lawyer (2014)
  • "Ethically Speaking: Rule 502 and Clawback Agreements," 54 Orange County Lawyer (2012)
  • "Ethically Speaking: Coito v. Superior Court and Discoverability of Witness Statements," 52 Orange County Lawyer (2010)  
  • "A Decade Down the Road But Still Running Through the Jungle: A Critical Review of Post-Fogerty Attorney's Fee Awards," 52 U. Kan. L. Rev. 457 (2004)
  • "Realigning the Initial Interest Confusion Doctrine with the Lanham Act," 25 Whittier L. Rev. 71 (2003)
  • "The Future of Domain Name Dispute Resolution: Crafting Practical International Legal Solutions From Within the UDRP Framework," 51 Duke L.J. 817 (2001). 

Professional Activities

  • Federal Bar Association - Orange County, board of directors

Education

Duke University School of Law (J.D., 2002), magna cum laude; Order of the Coif; Duke Law Journal; Award for Outstanding Achievement in Intellectual Property and Technology Law

University of St. Thomas, Minnesota (B.A., Economics, 1999), summa cum laude

Admissions

  • California
  • U.S. District Court for the Central, Northern and Southern Districts of California
  • U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth and Federal Circuits

Clerkships

  • Hon. Cynthia Holcomb Hall, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit
Jump to Page
Close