Before she was litigating trade secrets for global tech companies, Leslie Demers was pipetting compounds in a biomedical research lab – learning firsthand how a microscopic tweak could alter an entire biological outcome. That early fascination with precision and discovery became the foundation of her legal career. The science changed. The instinct didn’t: Find the detail that matters, understand its impact and use it to win.
Today, Demers is a technology litigator at M&A powerhouse Skadden, advising clients through the full arc of intellectual property disputes: trade secret misappropriation, patent infringement, copyright and unfair competition claims. Her work lives in high-voltage moments – the founder leaves, the joint venture sours, a demand letter arrives – when innovation meets human ambition and the future of a company hinges on what is proven in court.
“I would describe my style as commercial, practical and relentless,” says Demers. “I approach every matter with a tenacious commitment to solving my client’s problems, always keeping their broader business objectives in mind.”
Her cases ask her to translate complexity without flattening it – to explain biotech, algorithms or manufacturing processes with clarity that respects nuance. With generative AI, global supply chains and cross-border development reshaping what’s protectable, Demers is helping define how decades-old principles meet modern technology in the courtroom.
“New generative AI tools can boil the ocean for obscure publications in the blink of an eye,” says Demers. “The law is constantly evolving to keep apace with technology – there is endless stimulation in our field.”
As technology accelerates ahead of doctrine, Demers is energized. It’s the tension she thrives in – where innovation meets uncertainty and the right argument can shape how the law evolves. Her career reflects a throughline of precision, curiosity and ownership. For Demers, great lawyering isn’t just about mastery of the facts, but anticipation – thinking proactively, preparing relentlessly and delivering advice that sees around corners. In a field defined by change, she’s exactly where she belongs: steady in complexity, hungry for the next challenge.
Lawdragon: Can you describe for our readers the mix of work you do within your practice?
Leslie Demers: The focus of my practice is technology litigation. That covers a broad range of disputes – I litigate high stakes intellectual property disputes touching on all sorts of technology, from life sciences to high tech. The bulk of my disputes are trade secret misappropriation and patent infringement lawsuits, but we are increasingly bringing and defending against copyright, unfair competition and other claims typically considered “soft IP” alongside the more classic “hard IP” claims. While I enjoy litigating cases across the full technology spectrum, I have a particular appreciation for those in the life sciences field given my past life in biochemistry.
In recent years the bulk of my time has been focused on trade secret cases stemming from what we sometimes refer to as a professional divorce – employees leaving one company for a competitor or to start their own company, a joint development venture gone awry or a failed partnership. Clients most often call us after they receive a demand letter or see red flags on document exfiltration. But some clients proactively seek our input on how to best prevent intellectual property leakage with employees and with business partners in the first place to avoid a dispute. This ranges from trade secret audits to trainings on best practices for document handling, to advice on restrictive covenants in employment agreements to further discourage employees from violating confidentiality obligations. At Skadden, my partners and I are able to leverage our deep understanding of the technology at issue coupled with our robust trial experience to advise clients at every stage of the trade secrets lifecycle.
The law is constantly evolving to keep apace with technology – there is endless stimulation in our field.
At an M&A powerhouse like Skadden, we handle a high volume of meaningful deals. Part of my practice supports deals where intellectual property is a key asset, particularly in the life sciences space given my background in biochemistry.
LD: And how did you first become interested in developing this type of practice?
Demers: I spent time in a biomedical research lab in undergraduate, where I enjoyed learning about how small modifications to compounds can have profound implications biologically. While a career in medicine was not in the offing for me, I wanted to continue learning about cutting edge technology.
Skadden encourages lawyers to explore practice groups during their summer associate tenure. I joined our IP litigation group during my summer and have not looked back since. I had the opportunity to go to court to help successfully fend off a preliminary injunction in a trade secret case involving technology for manufacturing flavors and fragrances. Through this, I was able to work hand-in-hand with experts in the field to gain a deep understanding of our client’s technology. The field was new to me, and I enjoyed diving into our client’s business.
What keeps me practicing intellectual property law is not only the opportunity to partner with clients to understand their technology and business goals, but also the sophistication of the judges and the bar for intellectual property issues. The law is constantly evolving to keep apace with technology – there is endless stimulation in our field.
LD: What are some aspects of this work that you find professionally satisfying? What keeps you excited about it?
Demers: Patents and trade secrets are not new concepts; they are the fuel for innovation in our country and will outlive us all. But the doctrines are continuously evolving in part because technology is evolving. The advent of computer-driven inventions has tested the boundaries of what subject matter patents can – and should – cover. This question is a complicated one from a policy standpoint and judicial doctrine standpoint and one that continues to confound courts. Our clients come to Skadden to help distill the technology and legal issues for the court and, eventually, the jury, in a way that shows respect to the complexity but does not lose the forest for the trees. Winning motions on these complex issues is deeply satisfying.
Another way the law is evolving is how patent and trade secret precedent accounts for the global economy. It is not often the case that products are fully developed and sold within the United States and recent patent and trade secret cases are addressing what can and cannot be remedied here. Litigating these issues in high stakes cases and helping to bring clarity to the space is an honor.
I would be remiss to not mention the impact of generative AI on intellectual property law. In some ways, traditional intellectual property principles are well-suited to apply to inventions involving generative AI. For example, courts have applied the question of subject matter patent eligibility to generative AI in the same way as they have for other computer-based inventions. In other ways, generative AI may require creative legal theories. For example, one consideration in trade secret cases is whether the alleged trade secret is readily ascertainable. With new generative AI tools that can boil the ocean for obscure publications in the blink of an eye, what is considered readily ascertainable today may be a different matter.
The advent of computer-driven inventions has tested the boundaries of what subject matter patents can – and should – cover. This question is a complicated one that continues to confound courts.
LD: Are there any trends you are seeing in your practice in terms of the types of matters keeping you busy these days?
Demers: Yes, three trends are worth expanding upon. First, as I mentioned, trade secret cases are increasing in popularity. That may be because of the perception that patents do not provide as strong of coverage in some industry such as software, such that companies are leaning on trade secrets more. Or it may be because employees and information has never been as mobile as it is today, and thus the risk of trade secret theft is as its height. Or it may be a shifting attitude among some employees who do not properly understand trade secret law. We have seen this on the plaintiff side before, a misguided belief that because an employee contributed to an invention at a company, that invention belongs to the employee and they can start a company with that technology. Whatever is driving this swell, it is perceptible and companies should be on alert whenever employees are offboarded, when hiring employees from competitors to ensure there is no inadvertent leakage, and whenever sharing or receiving information with vendors or other business partners. This is frequently the case in the life sciences space, where companies often partner with each other to jointly develop drugs. Documenting the origin of trade secrets, who contributed to their invention, and who had access to them is key to hedge against the collaboration ending on bad terms. At Skadden, we are prepared to meet this growing demand for trade secrets counsel head-on.
Second, generative AI has been implicated in an increasing number of cases on my personal docket. Setting aside tools we use in our day-to-day (and the rightful fear of hallucinations from these tools), we have also seen a high level of litigation activity in this industry. This trend is likely closely tied to the first trend, with a high level of employee and information mobility. When employees change companies in the AI space – and especially when they move from one cutting edge AI company to another – there is a concern about trade secret leakage, intentional or not. There is an increased focus on restrictive covenants and employee training on information handling in view of these trends.
The third trend is a broader sentiment, and that is uncertainty – particularly in the patent space. The newly minted head of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has implemented new practices that many predict will amount to a sea change in the industry. With an IPR institution rate at rock bottom under the guidance, litigants should throw their playbook out the window (at least for the time being) and get creative on how to defend against or assert patents today. We also have seen companies asking whether to change their longstanding IP policies to prioritize patents over trade secrets. Needless to say it is difficult to predict how these policies will unfold – and whether the policies will outlast the administration change.
LD: What advice do you have now for current law school students?
Demers: My advice to law students is to focus on building both your legal skills and your professional brand from the outset. Ownership is key – take responsibility for your work, your learning and your reputation. Be the lawyer you would want to hire: responsive, reliable and always prepared.
Responsiveness is not just about answering emails quickly; it’s about being present, engaged and proactive in your approach to client needs and team dynamics. We tell our associates that the hallmarks of a strong team member is being proactive and not reactive. Follow the client and opposing party in the news, see what challenges they may face or opportunities we can capitalize on and think creatively how to bring that to the table. It is important to invest time in understanding your client’s business, not just their legal issues. The best lawyers are those who can see the bigger picture and offer practical, business-minded solutions.
Finally, don’t be afraid to carve out your own path. Seek out opportunities that excite you and don’t underestimate the value of building relationships – both within your firm and with clients. Your network and your reputation are assets that will serve you throughout your career.
LD: How would you describe your style as a lawyer? Or how do you think others see you?
Demers: I would describe my style as commercial, practical and relentless. I approach every matter with a tenacious commitment to solving my client’s problems, always keeping their broader business objectives in mind. I believe in partnering closely with clients, working to understand not just the legal issues at play but also the commercial realities and pressures they face. My goal is to deliver advice and advocacy that is clear, actionable and tailored to the client’s needs. I strive to be the kind of lawyer who is not only a strong advocate in the courtroom but also a trusted advisor at the strategy table. I enjoy turning setbacks into opportunities and pride myself on keeping a steady demeanor through the process.
