Attorney at Law
888-860-5678 x717 (telephone)
Larry Sandell, a registered patent attorney, focuses his practice on drafting and prosecuting patent applications, counseling clients on strategic Intellectual Property matters, district court litigation, and appellate practice. Mr. Sandell has a passion for advising start-ups and other innovative companies on Intellectual Property matters. In addition to his legal practice at Mei & Mark LLP, he is the CEO and General Counsel for Ultraviolet Interventions, Inc., a start-up medical device company developing technology to treat and prevent catheter infections.
Prior to joining Mei & Mark LLP, Mr. Sandell worked as an attorney at the Washington, D.C., office of Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP. There, his legal practice focused on patent litigation in both U.S. District Courts and before the International Trade Commission, patent drafting and prosecution, reexamination preparation, opinion work, and client counseling in electrical and mechanical technology areas—including medical devices, consumer electronics, and software.
Before entering law school, Mr. Sandell was engaged in political advocacy for marijuana law reform. He ran a state ballot initiative signature drive, worked on a state-level ballot initiative campaign, and coordinated state-level medical marijuana lobbying efforts.
While in law school, Mr. Sandell was a member of the George Washington University Law Review, represented indigent criminal defendants in D.C. Superior Court in a legal clinic, and interned for the ACLU’s Program on Freedom of Religion and Belief.
U.S. Courts of Appeals and U.S. Supreme Court
• ATEN International Co., Ltd. v. Uniclass Technology Co., Ltd. et al., No. 2018-1606, -1922 (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 (D.C. Cir.) (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 (Fed. Cir.) (Appeal of PTAB finding of invalidity in inter partes 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. 14-17498 (9th Cir.) (presented oral argument) (represented appellees Opta Corp. et al concerning claim preclusion issue).
• Creative Kingdoms, LLC. v. Int’l Trade Comm’n, No. 2014-1072 (Fed. Cir.) (appeal of Section 337 Determination).
• Hinkle v. Shinseki, No. 2011-7094 (Fed. Cir.) (Appeal of Veterans’ Claims decision) (pro bono).
U.S. District Court Litigation
• WiniaDaewoo Electronics America Inc. v. Opta Corporation et al., No. 13-cv-01247 (N.D. Cal.)
• 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).
• Boston Scientific Corp. v. Mirowski Family Ventures, LLC, No. 1:11-cv-0736 (S.D. Ind.) (2012) (Patent licensing dispute).
U.S. International Trade Commission Section 337 Investigations
• 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.).
Other Litigation Matters
• 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).
Select Publications and Presentations
• “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.
J.D., with high honors, Order of the Coif, George Washington University
B.S.E., with distinction, Biomedical and Electrical Engineering, Duke University
B.S.E., with distinction, Biomedical and Electrical Engineering, Duke University
California, District of Columbia, U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, U.S. Court of Appeals for Veterans Claims, U.S. Supreme Court
Recognized in the Washington, DC “Rising Stars” list for Intellectual Property Litigation, Super Lawyers magazine (2014, 2016, 2017, 2018).