Larry Sandell

律师
华盛顿哥伦比亚特区
电话:888-860-5678 x717
传真:888-706-1173
Larry Sandell是一位注册专利律师,专注于起草和起诉专利申请,为客户提供战略性知识产权事务和诉讼方面。 Sandell律师热衷于为创业公司和其他创新公司就知识产权事宜提供咨询。除了在美科律师事务所的法律实践外,他还是Ultraviolet Interventions, Inc.公司的首席执行官兼法律总顾问。该公司是一家开发医疗设备公司,开发治疗和预防导管感染的技术。
在加入美科律师事务所之前,Sandell律师在美国飞翰Finnegan律师事务所的华盛顿特区办公室担任律师。在那期间,他的法律实践着重于美国地方法院和国际贸易委员会之间的专利诉讼,专利起草和起诉,复审准备,意见工作,以及电气和机械技术领域(包括医疗设备和消费电子)的客户咨询。
在进入法学院之前,Sandell律师也从事曾大麻法律改革的政治倡导。他开展了国家投票签名活动,开展了州级投票活动,协调州级医疗大麻游说工作。
在法学院期间,Sandell律师是乔治华盛顿大学法律评论的成员,曾代表在法律诊所的高级法院的贫困刑事被告,并在ACLU的宗教和信仰自由计划担任实习生。
代表案例:
美国上诉法院,以及美国联邦最高法院:
Swagway, LLC. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2018-1672 (Federal Circuit) (Presented oral argument).
ATEN International Co., Ltd. v. Uniclass Technology Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2018-1606 (Federal Circuit) (Presented oral argument).
ATEN International Co., Ltd. v. Uniclass Technology Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2018-1922 (Federal Circuit).
United States v. AT&T Inc. et al., No. 2018-5214 (DC Circuit) (Represented proposed amicus curiae Cinémoi North America as local counsel).
Segway, Inc. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2018-1556 (Federal Circuit).
Drop Stop LLC v. Zhu, No. 2018-1533 (Federal Circuit).
Kaneka Corporation v. Xiamen Kingdomway Group Co., No. 2018-1892 (Federal Circuit).
Daewoo Electronics America Inc. v. Opta Corporation et al, No. 17-1421 (U.S. Supreme Court) (Petition for Certiorari filed).
Razor USA LLC et al. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2017-2591 (Federal Circuit) (Represented Intervenor Swagway, LLC).
Triple Up Limited v. Youku Tudou Inc., No. 17-7033 (DC Circuit) (presented oral argument) (question of internet-related personal jurisdiction in copyright infringement case).
Dragon Intellectual Property, LLC, v. DISH Network L.L.C., Sirius XM Radio Inc., Nos. 2016-2468, -2492 -2186 (Federa. Circuit) (Appeal of PTAB finding of invalidity in inter partes review review no. IPR2015-00499).
Adrian Rivera v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2016-1841 (Federal Circuit) (represented Intervenor Solofill, LLC and presented oral argument for affirmance of ITC determination of no violation).
Daewoo Electronics America Inc. v. Opta Corporation et al., No. 2014-17498 (9th Circuit) (Represented appellees Opta Corp. et al concerning claim preclusion issue and presented oral argument).
Creative Kingdoms, LLC. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2014-1072 (Federal Circuit) (Appeal of Section 337 Determination).
Hinkle v. Shinseki, No. 2011-7094 (Federal Circuit) (Appeal of Veterans’ Claims decision) (Pro bono).
美国地区法院诉讼:
WiniaDaewoo Electronics America Inc. v. Opta Corporation et al., No. 13-cv-01247 (N.D. Cal.) (Successfully represented Opta and related parties in alter ego/ successor liability suit dismissed at summary judgment stage).
United States v. AT&T Inc. et al., No. 17-cv-2511 (D.D.C.) (Represented proposed amicus curiae Cinémoi North America as local counsel).
ATEN International Co., Ltd. v. Uniclass Technology Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2:15-cv-04424 (C.D. Cal.) (Patent infringement litigation).
Nader Asghari-Kamrani & Kamran Asghari-Kamrani v. United Services Automobile Association, No. 2:15-xv-00478 (E.D. Va, Norfolk Division) (Represented independent inventors in patent infringement suit).
Becton, Dickinson and Company v. Insulet Corporation, No. 10-4371 (D. N.J)(2014) (Patent infringement suit).
Boston Scientific Corp. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, No. 1:11-cv-0736 (S.D. Ind.) (2012) (Patent licensing dispute).
337调查:
• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1139, Certain Electronic Nicotine Delivery Systems and Components Thereof.
• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1123, Certain Carburetors and Products Containing Such Carburetors.
• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1107, Certain LED Lighting Devices and Components Thereof.
• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-1000, Certain Motorized Self-Balancing Vehicles.
• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-974, Certain Aquarium Fittings and Parts Thereof.
• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-967, Certain Document Cameras and Software for Use Therewith.
• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-876, Certain Microelectromechanical Systems (MEMS Devices) and Products Containing Same (represented subpoenaed third party in challenging discovery subpoena).
• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-770, Certain Video Game Systems and Wireless Controllers and Components Thereof (represented Complainant Creative Kingdoms LLC in suit against Nintendo).
• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-658, Certain Video Game Machines and Related Three-Dimensional Pointing Devices (represented Complainant Hillcrest Laboratories, Inc. in suit against Nintendo).
• ITC Inv. No. 337-TA-726, Certain Electronic Imaging Devices (represented Respondent Research In Motion, Ltd. (RIM) in suit brought by Flashpoint Technology Inc.).
其它诉讼案件:
Carter v. Panero, No. 2012 E 0004178 H (D.C. Superior Court) (landlord-tenant matter) (pro bono).
Rivera-Martinez v. Shinseki, No. 12-3613 (U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims) (pro bono).
Moore v. Shinseki, No. 12-617 (U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims) (pro bono).
Dowling v. Shinseki, No. 09-817 (U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims) (pro bono).
Hinkle v. Shinseki, No. 09-515 (U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims) (pro bono).
代表出版物:
• Author, “What Statistical Analysis Reveals About Winning IPR Appeals,” Law360, Aug. 8, 2019. Click here for a PDF copy.
• Speaker on IP Issues, “BEVNET & NOSH Present: A Cannabis Forum For Food & Beverage,” New York, NY, June 14, 2019.
• “IP Strategies, Enforcement Considerations, and Potential Ethical Pitfalls in the Burgeoning (Quasi-)Legal Cannabis Industry,” New Jersey Intellectual Property Law Association (NJIPLA): Ethics in IP Seminar. Iselin, NJ, December 6, 2018.
• “What Cannabis Entrepreneurs Need To Know About Intellectual Property,” Marijuana Moment, LLC. June 14, 2018 (click here for link).
• “Best Intellectual Property Practices for Bringing New Textile Technology Product to Market: A Primer for Engineers, Business People, and Research Scientists,” Techtextil North America. Atlanta, GA, May 13, 2014.
• Coauthor. “Why Not Throw in the Design of the Kitchen Sink?: The Tricks and Traps of Including Designs in Omnibus Patent Applications,” The Intellectual Property Strategist, Oct. 2013.
• Coauthor. “Trademark Licensees May Be Barred from Challenging the Licensor’s Ownership of the Mark,” LES Insights, Oct. 24, 2011.
• Coauthor. “Patent Licenses Are Presumed to Include Continuation Patents When Same Products Are at Issue,” LES Insights, Sept. 19, 2011.
• Coauthor. “Cross License Agreements Had Only Tenuous Relevance to Determining Reasonably Royalty Damages and Were Not Required to Be Produced,” LES Insights, July 11, 2011.
• Coauthor. “Declaratory Judgment Action Challenging Patent Validity and Infringement Was Dismissed Despite a Patent Owner’s Statement that the Plaintiff’s Product May Infringe Certain Patents,” LES Insights, May 16, 2011.
• Coauthor. “Terminating a License Agreement Precludes Recovering Post-Judgment Royalties Under the Agreement,” LES Insights, March 14, 2011.
• Coauthor. “Licensee Breaches License Agreement by Allowing Its Law Firm Access to the Licensed Technology,” LES Insights, Feb. 14, 2011.
• Coauthor. “Judges Diverge on Use of Patent License Negotiations to Determine a Reasonable Royalty,” LES Insights, Dec. 6, 2010.
• Coauthor. “A Proposal to Remove Uncertainty from Claims of Small Entity Status before the USPTO by Correcting and Enhancing SBA and USPTO Regulations,” Bloomberg Law Reports, Jan. 19, 2010.
学历:
• 乔治华盛顿大学,法学博士,以特优成绩毕业
• 杜克大学,生物医学和电气工程
律师执照:
加利福尼亚州,哥伦比亚特区,美国专利和商标局,美国哥伦比亚特区地区法院,美国加州中区地方法院,美国加州北区地方法院,美国联邦巡回上诉法院,美国第九巡回上诉法院,美国哥伦比亚特区巡回上诉法院,美国退伍军人上诉法院, 美国联邦最高法院

专业认可:
2014年、2016年、2017年、2018年以及2019年在华盛顿特区被认为是知识产权《超级律师》杂志的“新星”