This site makes use of Javascript, please enable your web browser to allow Javascript. Thank you.
Dina M. Hayes

Dina M. Hayes


T: +1 312 583 2394
F: +1 312 583 2360

icon Download vCard

Legal Services


  • DePaul University College of Law
    JD, 1999
  • College of William & Mary
    BS, Biology, 1995

Bar Admission(s)

  • Illinois

Dina Hayes is Counsel in the Intellectual Property Department focusing on patent and trademark matters. Dina is experienced in all facets of full scale multiple-patent and multiple-party patent litigation in a variety of industries. Her diverse experience includes handling complex patent cases involving biomedical infusion devices, power wheelchair suspension systems, cardiac ablation devices and techniques, and digital audio fingerprinting methods.

Dina’s trademark experience includes the filing and prosecution of applications, initiation and defense of opposition proceedings and the enforcement of trademarks through federal litigation and conducting civil seizures of counterfeit products.

In addition to her trial experience, Dina is skilled in resolving patent matters through mediation, including the preparation of mediation statements, participation in mediation discussions and the negotiation of license and settlement agreements. She also advises clients in matters connected with application, opposition and reexamination proceedings before the United States Patent and Trademark Office for both patents and trademarks.

Representative Matters

  • B. Braun Medical, Inc. v. CareFusion Corporation, Hospira, Inc.: Represented B. Braun Medical in a patent infringement/ownership action related to intelligent medical infusion pumps and methods of therapy.
  • Permobil, Inc. v. Sunrise Medical (US) LLC: Represented Sunrise in companion patent infringement, invalidity and defense cases between competitors in power wheelchair industry concerning market leading products.
  • Kolcraft Enterprises v. Chicco USA: Represented Chicago-based Kolcraft in patent infringement action covering utility and design patents on children’s play yards.
  • DR Systems, Inc. v. Kodak: Represented DR Systems, an innovative designer manufacturer and supplier of imaging solutions against Kodak in successful enforcement of its propriety utility patent rights.
  • 3M v. Illinois Tool Works, Inc.: Represented Illinois Tool Works in defense of a patent infringement action by 3M regarding paint disbursement systems for the automotive industry.
  • ServerTech v. APC Corp.: Represented ServerTech in patent infringement cross-suit between competitors regarding intelligent power supplies for data rack storage facilities.
  • Black & Decker v. Sorensen: Represented Black & Decker in declaratory judgment patent action of invalidity and non-infringement regarding methods for two stage injection molded plastics.