- J.D., University of South Dakota School of Law
- B.A., South Dakota State University
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin
- U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin
- U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit
- U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
Aaron is a business litigator and trial lawyer who has represented clients—ranging from Fortune 100 corporations and national financial institutions, to privately held businesses and family-owned companies—in high-stakes lawsuits across the United States. Aaron’s broad litigation experience spans everything from large intellectual property cases to lawsuits involving contract disputes, breach-of-privacy, trademark and false advertising, product liability, and employment disputes over covenants not to compete.
Often tasked to work on high-profile lawsuits where entire product lines or business units are at stake, Aaron's litigation teams have secured jury verdicts and other favorable outcomes in venues across the United States. Aaron's results range from “Top 100 Verdicts” receiving national recognition, to major defensive wins at trial and summary judgment.
With small-town roots in Midwest farm country, Aaron's approach to the law is rooted in skill, hard work, and common sense. As a trial lawyer, Aaron excels at communicating complex legal and technical matters to juries in a compelling and accessible way. Clients, in turn, rely on Aaron for straightforward legal representation, based on a genuine understanding of their business and a vigilant focus on their bottom line. Aaron’s goal is to solve, not exploit, his clients’ business issues. In a profession where lawyers often see little more than the lawsuit (and billing opportunities) immediately in front of them, Aaron's goal is to forge long-term partnerships with clients built on a foundation of excellent results, unmatched value, and the shared pursuit of larger business objectives.
“Privilege Issues in Intellectual Property Matters,” 2023 IP Stampede sponsored by the Minnesota Intellectual Property Law Association, June 7, 2023 (member of speaking panel with fellow IP lawyers and a federal magistrate judge)
“What Every (Yes, Every!) In-House Counsel at the 2022 IP Institute Needs to Know About Patent Litigation,” 2022 Midwest IP Institute, September 30, 2022 (presenter)
“Taking Stock of Patent Venue,” CLE, October 1, 2020 (presenter).
“The Top 10 Federal District Court Patent Cases of 2017-18,” CLE, October 29, 2018 (presenter)
“After TC Heartland: Venue Considerations for Practitioners,” September 29, 2017 (panelist)
“Talking Turf: Trends, Traps, and Strategic Considerations Relating to Patent Venue,” Minnesota CLE, March 23, 2017 (presenter)
“What we learned,” Minnesota CLE, March 10, 2016 (panelist)
“Dealing with the Aftermath of the Akamai, Alice and Nautilus Decisions,” September 24, 2015 (moderator)
“IP 2015,” CLE, April 28, 2015 (presenter)
“What the Supremes Did, Didn’t, or Should do in Intellectual Property,” CLE, April 15, 2015 (presenter)
“IP at the Supreme Court,” October 21, 2014 (presenter)
“Akamai v. Limelight,” Midwest IP Institute Seminar, September 18, 2014 (moderator)
“A review of Section 101 case law,” CLE, April 29, 2014 (presenter)
“Defensive and Legislative Strategies for Patent Trolls,” November 12, 2013 (presenter)
“Patently Relevant: Recent Developments in Patent Litigation,” May 14, 2013 (panelist)
“Why Litigators Make Bad Licensing Deals,” April 12, 2013 (presenter)
“Indirect Infringement—Aid and Abet? Do Not Pass Go, Do Not Collect $200,” December 12, 2012 (presenter)
“Is it Patentable?,” CLE, April 24, 2012 (presenter)
“Navigating Patent Reform,” CLE, November 14, 2011 (presenter)
“Divided Infringement: The Enforceability of Patents (or Not) in the Age of Combined Infringement,” Midwest IP Institute Seminar, September 22, 2011 (moderator)
“Design Patents: How to Prove Infringement and Fight Off a Validity Challenge,” CLE, December 15, 2010 (presenter)
“Top Ten Ways to Blow Your Patent Litigation Budget - Patent Litigation and the Bottom Line: Strategies for the New Economic Reality,” November 15, 2010
- “Top 10 Patent Litigation Results,” The IP Book, 18th ed., September 2020 (author)
- “Top 10 Patent Litigation Results,” The IP Book, 17th ed., September 2019 (author)
- “Top 10 Patent Litigation Results,” The IP Book, 16th ed., September 2018 (author)
- “TC Heartland v. Kraft Foods: The U.S. Supreme Court Reinvents Patent Litigation Venue,” The IP Book, 15th ed., September 2017 (author)
- “Arctic Cat v. Bombardier Recreational Products,” Intellectual Property Magazine, July 2016
- “Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sandoz, Inc.: Supreme Court Clarifies the Standard of Review for Claim Construction,” The IP Book, 13 ed., September 2015 (co-author)
- “Limelight v. Akamai: The U.S. Supreme Court Tackles (Kind of) the Issue of Joint Infringement,” The IP Book, 12 ed., September 2014 (co-author)
- “Bowman v. Monsanto: Knowing Beans About the Scope of Patent Rights for Self-Replicating Products,” The IP Book, 11th ed., September 2013 (co-author)
- “Divided Infringement: A Legal Standard in En Banc Limbo,” The IP Book, 10th ed., September 2012 (co-author)
- “The Enforceability of Patents (or Not) In the Age of Combined Infringement,” The IP Book, 9th ed., September 2011 (co-author)
- Aaron's trial team received a jury verdict for Arctic Cat in the District of Minnesota in a patent-litigation suit brought by Bombardier Recreational Products (“BRP”): Bombardier Recreational Products v. Arctic Cat (D. Minnesota). BRP alleged that numerous model years of Arctic Cat’s snowmobiles infringed two different BRP patents, each from different patent families, relating to snowmobile frame designs and steering position. After a three-week trial, the jury returned a verdict finding that both of the asserted patents were invalid on multiple grounds. The significance of the verdict earned Aaron and his team a “Minnesota Attorney of the Year” recognition.
- Aaron represented a major insurance provider in privacy litigation related to the inadvertent disclosure of allegedly protected health-related information.
- Represented GE MDS (a General Electric Company subsidiary) in the District of Delaware in patent litigation involving technology related to cellular systems involving error rate dependent controls.
- Aaron’s trial team persuaded a jury in the Southern District of Florida that BRP willfully infringed two Arctic Cat patents covering off-throttle steering for personal watercraft: Arctic Cat v. Bombardier Recreational Products (S.D. Florida). The verdict was followed by an award of treble damages and enhanced royalties on future infringing units. The outcome was recognized on the list of Top 100 Verdicts in the United States for that year. On appeal, the Federal Circuit affirmed the validity of the asserted patents and the enhancement of damages for willful infringement, while remanding the case for a new calculation of total damages based upon an interpretation of the patent marking statute.
- Aaron represented a plastics manufacturer in litigation related to alleged violations of non-competition and non-solicitation covenants. Aaron has also represented executives and departing employees accused of violating such covenants.
- Aaron represented a major national bank in a Northern District of California lawsuit asserting claims of trademark infringement, false advertising, and other business torts. The case, which was followed closely in the business press, included a successful appeal to the Ninth Circuit on issues relating to the bank’s preliminary injunction motion.
- Aaron’s team received a complete victory in the Western District of Wisconsin for a defendant accused of patent and trademark infringement in a case relating to HVAC ductwork. Aaron’s client received summary judgment on the trademark and patent claims, with the court’s order finding the invalidity of the asserted patent.
- Aaron's team represented Arctic Cat in a patent infringement case in the District of Minnesota involving multiple patents relating to electronic fuel injection technology for two-stroke engines. Arctic Cat received a defense victory that included summary judgment rulings on six separate legal grounds.
- Represented a major national bank in two patent lawsuits relating to electronic systems for providing crop insurance and claim-processing.
- Represented a major U.S. industrial company in several product liability lawsuits alleging defects of products related to industrial and manufacturing safety.
- Represented a major U.S. restaurant company in trademark litigation against a multinational food company in the Northern District of Illinois. The case related to the branding of products for sale in grocery stores.
- Represented a major power sports manufacturer in litigation instituted in the International Trade Commission against a foreign competitor in a case involving engine-control technology.
- Represented a publicly traded Canadian company in federal medical-device litigation involving claims for trade secret misappropriation, unfair competition, and breach of contract.
- Represented a Minnesota company in contract, trade secret, and patent-related action involving agribusiness and soy-extraction technology. Represented the largest United States manufacturer of storm doors in patent infringement litigation and other IP matters.
- The Best Lawyers in America®, Intellectual Property, 2024
- Minnesota Lawyer, "Arctic Cat's Winning Team" Attorney of the Year, 2018
- Minnesota Super Lawyers® Intellectual Property Litigation, 2016-2021
- Minnesota Super Lawyers® Rising Stars, 2005-2015
- Minnesota Lawyer, Up & Coming Attorney, 2010