Kara Grogan Image

Kara Grogan

Member of

Logo for Mintz

Kara E. Grogan is an associate at Mintz.

Kara focuses her practice on Section 337 cases in the International Trade Commission, patent litigation, and assisting clients with licensing agreements. She has experience in drafting motions, discovery requests, and license arrangements. She works with clients in a broad range of industries, including consumer products and technology.

Kara was a Law Clerk at Mintz in 2018. While attending law school, she served as a law clerk in the Office of Unfair Import Investigations at the US International Trade Commission; a legal intern at a Massachusetts-based global athletic footwear and apparel company; and a judicial intern for the Hon. George A. O’Toole Jr., who is now a Senior US District Court Judge for the District of Massachusetts. In law school, she was a staff member and a publications editor for the Northeastern University Law Review.

Prior to attending law school, Kara was a paralegal at two intellectual property law firms: one based in Massachusetts and the other in Connecticut. In those roles, she conducted legal research, reviewed discovery, and drafted interrogatories for US patent litigation. She also helped prepare US patent and trademark applications and foreign filings. Earlier, she was an account executive at a sports and entertainment sponsorship and marketing agency in Connecticut and a seasonal partnership marketing employee with the National Hockey League.

Recent Articles by Kara Grogan

A Critique of Glory Days and How Reports of Anticompetitive Risks of Pools Have Been Greatly Exaggerated

In a previous article, we laid out the basics of “patent pools”, which license patents that are declared essential for technology standards. A recent article published in the University of San Diego Law Review, titled Glory Days: Do the Anticompetitive Risks of Standards-Essential Patent Pools Outweigh Their Procompetitive Benefits? (Glory Days), criticized patent pools, alleging inefficiencies and anticompetitive risks of pools for standard essential patents (SEPs). While the authors make several rebuttable suggestions, the crux of the authors’ complaints about SEP patent pools is that SEP pools should bear all the burdens and expenses of verifying with a litigation-grade level of certainty that all patents in the pool are essential and valid before an implementer will even engage in a licensing discussion with the pool. This approach is not economically or practically realistic and is designed to justify hold out and provide cover for implementers to refuse to engage in licensing discussions.

The Patent Pool Explained: An Effective Mechanism When the Burden is Shared

Implementers of standard essential technology such as Long-Term Evolution (LTE) are constantly attempting to reduce costs for implementation. This behavior has led to certain inefficiencies in the marketplace, such as innovators not being compensated for their contributions to technological standards. The symbiotic relationship between innovators and implementers cannot continue where one side takes all the risk and the other side reaps all the reward. One construct put in place by innovators to extract compensation from the marketplace are patent pools that license patents that are declared essential for technology standards.