Select Page

Brenda Entzminger

 

Attorney, USPTO Reg. No. 76,896

Experience

 

Brenda Entzminger is a registered patent attorney and a trial lawyer with nearly 10 jury trials to her credit, but she is far from complacent. With rapid advances in genome-based diagnostics and treatments, gene editing therapies, and A.I.-leveraged precision medicine, Brenda understands that this is no time to sit back and let the biotechnology revolution pass us by. And so, to offer cutting edge legal advice to biotech clients and the technical expertise to evaluate and build their patent portfolios, Brenda enrolled in Johns Hopkins University’s Master’s of Science in Biotechnology program. Her graduate level coursework delves into the latest research in biochemistry, advanced cell biology processes, cell signaling and drug discovery, gene therapy, stem cell biology, and regenerative medicine, as well as the current requirements of FDA law, patent law, and global regulatory affairs.

Brenda’s unmatched wealth of experience allows her to serve as a bridge between the fields of law and science & technology. Brenda has over 14 years of litigation experience, having conducted 8 jury trials and managed all aspects of pre-trial, post-trial and appellate litigation. Brenda has conducted over 100 depositions, authored over 200 briefs, presented oral argument at over 50 motion hearings, arbitrations, and mediations, and even appeared three times before the Nevada Supreme Court. Brenda also managed the regional litigation strategies for numerous clients, including the 6-year No. 1 Fortune company, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. She served as Walmart’s Outside Counsel on hundreds of cases, partnering directly with Associate General Counsel for over 14 years.

Brenda is licensed in both California and Nevada. Although the California bar exam was no cake walk, Brenda also took the 3-day Nevada bar exam to assist existing business clients with their legal matters in Nevada. In fact, she successfully transformed a two-attorney satellite office into the law firm’s profit center, by bringing in new clients, obtaining additional work from existing clients, and negotiating and revising fee agreements. Brenda rose to the level of Managing Partner of the firm’s Las Vegas office, having cultivated a reputation among her peers, clients, and the judiciary as a talented, detail-oriented, and results-driven litigator.

 

A passion for science & technology and fierce advocacy. Brenda’s talent, experience and drive achieve the resolutions and results clients need to get legal disputes resolved, patent rights enforced, and innovations patented and commercialized.

Brenda Entzminger delivers results. Implementing creative strategies, preparing formidable briefs and delivering compelling oral arguments, Brenda achieves the litigation results that allow the best possible resolutions for her clients, whether via summary judgment, dismissal, settlement, trial or appeal. Importantly, Brenda also delivers the advice and investigatory due diligence needed to resolve matters before litigation commences.

Some representative matters include the following:
  • Winfield v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 0:16-cv-16820 (9th Cir. 2017) (Ninth Circuit order dismissing
    appeal for lack of jurisdiction)
     Authored moving papers throughout appeal.
  • McConnell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2016 WL 3018812 (9th Cir. 2016) (Ninth Circuit order
    affirming defense verdict in favor of retailer after jury trial)
     Authored Ninth Circuit Respondent Brief; decision without oral argument.
  • Wilson, D. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2016 WL 1595351 (D.Nev. Apr. 19, 2016) (order granting
    motion for summary judgment in favor of retailer in products liability action)
     Authored all moving papers and conducted oral argument at all motion hearings.
  • Winfield v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2016 WL 1169450 (D.Nev. Mar. 22, 2016) (affirming orders
    granting exclusion of: $4,100,000 in future damages, three expert witnesses, $234,000 in surgery
    costs, and over $74,000 in past medical expenses)
     Authored all moving papers and conducted oral argument at motion hearings. 
  • Greene, Jackie v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2016 WL 829981 (D.Nev. Jan. 26, 2016) (order granting
    Walmart’s motion for dismissal sanctions), adopted by Greene v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2016
    WL 829977 (D.Nev. Mar. 3, 2016)
     Authored all moving papers and conducted oral argument at motion hearing.
  • Love v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., A699214-C, Judgment (Eighth Judicial District Court, Clark
    County, Nevada, August 13, 2015) (defense judgment following defense award at arbitration)
     Authored briefs and conducted examinations/argument at arbitration hearing.
  • Montilla v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2015 WL 5458781 (D.Nev. Sept. 16, 2015) (order granting
    motion to exclude over $100,000 in past medical expenses and future surgery claim)
     Authored all moving papers; decision rendered without oral argument.
  • Mumford v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 2:14-cv-00787, ECF No. 24 (D.Nev. Jan. 22, 2015) (order
    granting motion to exclude $713,000 in future damages)
     Authored all moving papers and conducted oral argument at motion hearing.
  • Shakespear v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2:12-cv-01064 –MMD-PAL, Jury Verdict (D.Nev. Nov. 7,
    2014) (defense verdict following jury trial)
     Served as Lead Trial Counsel during one-week federal court jury trial.
  • Esquivel v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2:13-cv-01968 –GMN-CWH, Order Granting Walmart’s
    Motion for Sanctions (D.Nev. Oct. 30, 2014) (order excluding: $759,000 damages claim,
    neuropsychologist expert, and evidence re traumatic brain injury)
     Authored all moving papers and conducted oral argument at motion hearing.

  • Alcantara v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 321 P.3d 912 (Nev. 2014) (Nevada Supreme Court Opinion
    affirming trial court’s dismissal of client on issue preclusion grounds)
     Authored moving papers and conducted oral argument at motion hearing.

  • McConnell v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2:12–cv–01601–RCJ–PAL, Jury Verdict (D.Nev. Feb. 24,
    2014) (defense verdict following jury trial)
     Served as Lead Trial Counsel during week-long federal court jury trial.

  • Tzvetanova v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2:12-cv-02069-RCJ-CWH, Docket No. 95 (D.Nev. Aug. 6,
    2013) (order granting motion to exclude expert witnesses, evidence and over $840,000 in
    damages)
     Authored moving papers and conducted oral argument at motion hearing.

  • Shakespear v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2013 WL 3491172 (D.Nev. July 8, 2013) (order granting
    motion to exclude plaintiff’s two retained medical experts and excluding $228,000 in future
    medical expenses)
     Authored moving papers and conducted oral argument at motion hearing.

  • Badger v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2:11-cv-01609-KJD-CWH (D. Nev. July 26, 2013) (order
    granting defense motion to dismiss per FRCP 41(b))
     Authored moving papers and conducted oral argument at motion hearing.

  • Smith, D. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2012 WL 4051925 (D.Nev. Sept. 13, 2012) (order granting
    motion to exclude $320,000 in damages)
     Authored moving papers and conducted oral argument at motion hearing.

  • Garabedian, T. v. Tao Nightclub, et. al., 08A578778, Jury Verdict (Nev.Dist.Ct. Aug. 31, 2012)
    (successfully limited damages verdict in admitted liability trial to <1/5 pre-trial demand)
     Served as Lead Trial Counsel during week-long state court jury trial.

  • Kerns v. Hoppe, et. al., 2012 WL 991651 (Nev.Sup.Ct. Mar. 21, 2012) (Supreme Court Order
    affirming summary judgment in wrongful death action against pharmacy clients)
     Authored moving papers and conducted oral argument.

  • Smith (Estate of M. Born) v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2011 WL 3622952, Jury Verdict
    (Nev.Dist.Ct.) (defense verdict for client in wrongful death negligent security action)
     Served as Trial Counsel, second chair, in 4-week-long state court jury trial.

  • Hamilton v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 3:08-cv-00615-RCJ-VPC, Order (D.Nev. Jan. 26, 2010)
    (order granting motion summary judgment in negligent security action)
     Authored moving papers; decision rendered without oral argument.

  • Saavedra-Sandoval v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 245 P.3d 1198 (Nev. 2010) (Supreme Court Order
    affirming dismissal of action for failure to comply with service requirements)
     Authored moving papers and conducted oral argument.

  • Lewis v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 2008 WL 4547961, Jury Verdict (Nev.Dist.Ct. July 31, 2008)
    (defense verdict following jury trial in wrongful death negligent security action)
     Served as Trial Counsel, second chair, in week-long state court jury trial.

 

Innovations shape our present and our future. Patent law dictates the nature of biotechnology research and the therapies that will ultimately become available to patients. For more information, click here.

Knowledge matters. Why would anyone return to school despite already having a successful law practice, and having passed the Patent Bar as well as two states’ Bar exams? Weren’t the years spent getting a Juris Doctor and Bachelor’s degree in biology quite enough? For Brenda Entzminger, absolutely not. Scientists, engineers, and other innovators devote themselves to their craft for decades, often putting a lifetime of work into their field of study. To be the best legal advocate for these inventors, there can be no guesswork or reliance on “alternative facts” – expertise matters. Commitment. Many of us may have participated in disease-research fundraisers. We want to support important research that is seeking to improve patient’s lives, minimize debilitating symptoms, and ultimately, find an effective cure or treatment for these diseases. We may have chosen to help because we have or have had a loved one afflicted by such diseases, or because we know that as we age, we are likely to be personally affected. 

As we all know, funding is essential to this critical research, but so too is the commitment of the dedicated women and men who devote their lives to these areas of research. Brenda Entzminger’s work seeks to ensure that their beneficial discoveries and innovative therapies reach the afflicted public.

Important work is being undertaken by researchers at the Max Planck Institute of Biochemistry to find the underlying causes of and potential treatments for protein aggregation diseases. (Click here for a fascinating discovery into the mechanism of GroEL ring separation and exchange) The majority of neurodegenerative protein aggregation diseases, such as Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and Huntington’s, appear with older age, as our cells’ proteostasis networks decline. [1] Specialized proteins, called chaperones, prevent protein aggregation by binding to unfolded or misfolded proteins and guiding them to degradation pathways or to specialized protein folding chambers called chaperonins. [2,3] Research into how chaperones perform protein folding and quality control may lead to biotechnological applications for preventing and treating protein aggregation diseases. [1]

And when Brenda isn’t working or studying? You’ll find her learning Italian, biking and running around San Francisco, or planning her next travel adventure with her husband.

Education

 

University of California, Hastings College of the Law

J.D.

The Johns Hopkins University

Master’s of Science Degree, Biotechnology

Recent Blogs

 
Biotechnology Patent Complications

Biotechnology Patent Complications

Biotechnology is a rapidly expanding field that stands to drastically change and improve a number of industries, namely healthcare. As discoveries, applications, and new inventions are unfolding, understanding how biotechnology companies can and should apply for patents is important. However, equally important is the understanding that certain complications can arise when it comes to applying for a biotechnology patent.